The opinions and comments stated in this article and the views expressed by any contributor do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management, or employees.
Editor’s note: This article was written with input from David Gurney, Director of Ramapo College’s Investigative Genetic Genealogy Center. His program is assisting the law enforcement agency the author works for with the identification of a set of human remains located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in 1986.
Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) found its roots in investigations with the solving of the Golden State Killer case in 2018. Practitioners in the field of IGG utilize public genealogy databases in several capacities, such as to identify the relatives of:
- Unknown suspect DNA profiles found at crime scenes
- Missing persons
- Unidentified human remains (UHR)
IGG is commonly utilized when the traditional DNA comparison through the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is unsuccessful.
The use of IGG has assisted in identifying hundreds of previously unknown offenders and sets of unidentified human remains. These identifications have led to the resolution of numerous cases, many resulting in criminal convictions.
The Background on Ancestry and IGG
The online genealogy company Ancestry.com (Ancestry®), owned by private equity firm Blackstone, has never allowed law enforcement to upload unknown DNA profiles to its site to identify “matches” to the owner of that profile. But for years, law enforcement officials were allowed to utilize Ancestry’s large database of public records and the family tree building software. Those resources were used in connection with missing persons and UHR cases.
Ancestry boasts the most user-friendly family tree building software. It is visually pleasing and easy to navigate. In addition, their software provides hints, based on historical records, that assist users in building a family tree.
Now, the use of their site by law enforcement, even for non-criminal investigations, is no longer permitted.
Why Ancestry’s Update to Its Terms and Conditions Will Impact Cases
In August 2025, Ancestry updated the wording in their Terms and Conditions. Most of their update targeted law enforcement officials and anyone utilizing the website who conducted research in support of an investigation. Specifically, the updated wording states that “In exchange for access to the Services, you agree….not to use the [Ancestry] Services in connection with any law enforcement investigation or judicial proceeding.”
This new wording extends to civilian users of Ancestry. They are now prohibited from willingly sharing their family trees, DNA matches or any other information they gather through the site with law enforcement agencies. This restriction remains true even if that user has a missing family member and volunteers to assist investigators on their loved one’s case.
The update not only prevents law enforcement from accessing Ancestry, but also other sites the company owns, including:
- Newspapers.com®
- Find a Grave®
- Fold3®, a collection of open-source U.S. military records
I’ve been unable to find any explanation from Ancestry for their change in their terms of use. Users are left to wonder what led to this decision.
Contradictions in Ancestry’s Convoluted Wording
I found a glaring contradiction to Ancestry’s update. Their Terms and Conditions state, “Ancestry does not claim any ownership rights to Your Content, control how you choose to share Your Content within the Services, or limit how you share Your Content outside of Ancestry’s Services.”
This statement may lead users to believe it is still okay to voluntarily assist law enforcement using their family tree data. The wording creates a very confusing situation, and I hope Ancestry will soon publish a clarification.
IGG has been used for years – and is still being used – to identify the remains of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Our country’s largest terrorism investigation centered around identifying the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.
It’s unknown if Ancestry is now going to bar the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in New York from using its site to continue identifying these victims. The wording in its updated terms does not address this issue.
The same issue can also be applied to cases in which law enforcement agencies are trying to identify the family members of unclaimed remains. Although the identity of these remains is known, the exact same process is being used to locate the deceased’s blood relatives.
Ancestry recently released a podcast series, “Unclaimed,” voicing its support for that process. It is the same methodology used to identify relatives of missing persons and unidentified human remains.
Ancestry is forbidding the use of their site to identify human remains or assist with missing persons, but the company is permitting the use of its site to find the relatives of unclaimed people. It’s unclear why.
Ancestry Has Restricted Access to Publicly Available Records
Ancestry houses the largest online collection of public records. Many U.S. government agencies have entered into agreements with Ancestry to allow the company to host and profit from records owned by taxpayers.
Ancestry does not own any of the original records it hosts, though the company claims it owns the digitized versions. This issue is currently being litigated in Pennsylvania. From my perspective, Ancestry only owns the software it developed that assists users in locating key documents.
All of the records are publicly available, whether through a government institution, library or newspaper archive. However, it is inefficient and entirely too costly in time and money for law enforcement officials to travel around the world and seek out original copies of records.
Governments are under no obligation to allow Ancestry to make digitized copies or host files. They could easily add conditions to those agreements that state Ancestry must allow anyone who would have access to the physical records to also have access to the digital records, which would include law enforcement.
David Gurney notes, “Ancestry has contracts with local government, state governments, and the federal government to host the American people’s public records and charge money to access them. The American people have made those records public because it is in the public interest to do so.
“It is unreasonable for Ancestry to block access to those records for a public good such as IGG. Governments would be well within their rights to reconsider the contracts they have and require Ancestry to make all of its public records available to the same people that would have access to them – including law enforcement – outside of Ancestry.”
Investigations into Unsolved Cases Will Be Negatively Impacted
Due to the new Ancestry restrictions, unsolved cases of missing persons and UHR will surely stall. In both types of cases, the primary goal of identifying the unknown is to restore those people back to their families. The loved ones of these victims will remain without answers, and countless cases will continue to be unsolved.
If a set of unidentified human remains is located and the manner of death is determined to be a homicide, an investigation cannot begin until the victim is identified. Without Ancestry, the process of identifying the victim will be considerably delayed.
During this delay, some offenders and persons with key information on these cases will pass away. Fewer identifications will add to our country’s already unacceptable number of unsolved homicide cases.
According to Project Cold Case, that number hovers around 346,000. National Missing and Unidentified Person System (NamUs) estimates there to be approximately 26,170 long-term missing persons and 15,490 unidentified human remains in the U.S.
Many coroner and medical examiner offices in the U.S. maintain custody of unidentified human remains for which there is no obvious manner of death. Without a manner of death, there is no criminal investigation so there is no law enforcement nexus.
I’ve been told by IGG experts that Ancestry’s updated terms also apply to these coroners and medical examiners, even though they are not law enforcement officials conducting an investigation.
Ancestry’s Chilling Effect on Missing Persons Cases
Through my experience in law enforcement investigations, I’ve learned that many missing persons have no reference DNA sample uploaded into CODIS. A reference sample can come from the missing person (for example, from hair in a hairbrush that was left behind by that person) or from one of their close relatives.
The absence of that type of DNA in CODIS can lead to scenarios that result in an inability to locate a missing person.
For example, someone’s remains may have been located but there was no information to identify that person. Subsequently, a DNA profile was developed and uploaded into CODIS. Without locating a relative and obtaining a reference sample, the remains will stay unidentified.
The missing person may be alive and serving time in prison after a felony conviction. A felony conviction usually compels the offender to provide a DNA sample that is later uploaded into CODIS.
Without a DNA reference sample of that missing person or a relative, no match will be made in the database. As a result, someone will officially remain a missing person.
As a cold case investigator at my local Sheriff’s Office, I have used Ancestry to build the family tree of some of my agency’s missing persons who had no DNA profile in CODIS. This work allowed me to locate someone’s closest living relative and ask permission to obtain that person’s DNA for comparison.
No family member has ever turned down my request. All of them appreciated that efforts were being made to locate their loved one.
Public Safety Concerns and Lower Arrest Rates
Although Ancestry is not used to identify suspects, its new Terms and Conditions will have an indirect effect on arrest rates. Public safety will be impacted by Ancestry’s change in rules due to the delay in victim identifications. Certain violent offenders will remain free with the opportunity to commit additional crimes.
Clarification on the New York Times Coverage of IGG and Ancestry
Recently, Corey Kilgannon of the New York Times released an article titled, “Cold Case Inquiries Stall after Ancestry.com Revisits Policy for Users.” While much of his article was accurate, there were some statements that were misleading to consumers who are not familiar with IGG.
Specifically, Kilgannon stated that “millions of people willingly enter their DNA into consumer databases.” No user’s actual DNA sequence is ever uploaded onto a public database. Each genealogy company translates the user’s DNA into a coded format that, if typed out in whole on a piece of paper, would be meaningless.
Only the coded versions, which are compatible with each company’s database algorithms, are uploaded into each site. Afterwards, each user’s original DNA samples are destroyed.
The theme of the article focused on consumers’ coded DNA profiles housed on Ancestry’s site. However, the recent change in Ancestry’s Terms and Conditions was focused on access to public records, not DNA.
Law enforcement has never had reason to access Ancestry’s DNA databases, because Ancestry has never allowed law enforcement to upload unknown DNA profiles to its site.
The Ethical Debate of Continued Use
A company’s Terms and Conditions are not equivalent to a law, so technically it is not illegal for law enforcement to continue using Ancestry’s site. But there is a moral and ethical debate behind any continued use of this site. Many law enforcement agencies’ ethical guidelines prohibit their personnel from disobeying a private company’s terms of service.
Although it’s not illegal to ignore Ancestry’s terms, doing so could jeopardize information gathered from the site. That could lead to a judge preventing that information and any evidence obtained as a result from being used in a criminal proceeding. So far, there is no case precedence to cite, but it is inevitable that precedence will soon be made.
How You Can Help
If you would like to voice your concern about this change to Ancestry’s Terms and Conditions, I urge you to reach out to your state legislators. State representatives need to be made aware that Ancestry is barring law enforcement from having access to its sites and public records.
Also, it’s necessary to remind those state representatives that state governments paid Ancestry to digitize those records. The organizations that entered into agreements with Ancestry would be well within their rights to reconsider, due to Ancestry refusing to provide access to law enforcement.
If you’re opposed to the updated Terms and Conditions, you can cancel your Ancestry account. By canceling your account, you may provide feedback to Ancestry on your reasoning for canceling. You can also download your DNA kit and family tree data and transfer it to a different genealogy site before canceling the Ancestry account.
There are other ways you can help:
- Share this article on social media, voice your objections and concerns, and tag Ancestry in the post
- Contact mainstream media
If readers would like to allow law enforcement to use their DNA results for IGG, they can upload their DNA file to other sites, such as:
For more information, you can listen to a recent conversation I had with Bill Thomas, whose sister Cathy and her girlfriend, Becky, were murdered in 1986. That interview can be found on the podcast Bill hosts, Mind Over Murder.
Additionally, Cairenn Binder of Ramapo College has appeared on the GeneaVlogger YouTube channel to voice her concerns about Ancestry’s ban on law enforcement use of its sites.
Special thanks to David Gurney of Ramapo College’s Investigative Genetic Genealogy Center for providing input for this article.
Ancestry, Newspapers.com, Find a Grave, and Fold3 are registered trademarks of Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
FamilyTreeDNA is a registered trademark of Genealogy by Genetics, Ltd.
GedMatch is a registered trademark of Verogen, Inc.
DNA Justice is a registered trademark of the DNA Justice Foundation Corporation.