New laws in Maryland and Montana are the first in the nation to restrict law enforcement’s use of genetic genealogy, the DNA matching technique that in 2018 identified the Golden State Killer, in an effort to ensure the genetic privacy of the accused and their relatives.

Beginning on Oct. 1, investigators working on Maryland cases will need a judge’s signoff before using the method, in which a “profile” of thousands of DNA markers from a crime scene is uploaded to genealogy websites to find relatives of the culprit. The new law, sponsored by Democratic lawmakers, also dictates that the technique be used only for serious crimes, such as murder and sexual assault. And it states that investigators may only use websites with strict policies around user consent.

Montana’s new law, sponsored by a Republican, is narrower, requiring that government investigators obtain a search warrant before using a consumer DNA database, unless the consumer has waived the right to privacy.

The laws “demonstrate that people across the political spectrum find law enforcement use of consumer genetic data chilling, concerning and privacy-invasive,” said Natalie Ram, a law professor at the University of Maryland who championed the Maryland law. “I hope to see more states embrace robust regulation of this law enforcement technique in the future.”

The full article written by Virginia Hughes is much longer and can be found in the New York Times at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/31/science/dna-police-laws.html.

The following is an extract from an article by Ashley Murray and published in the Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) Post-Gazette at https://bit.ly/3wVQv8O:

If you’ve ever wanted to explore 19th-century Pittsburgh City Council records, learn what was happening in Allegheny City — today’s North Side — just before its annexation, or delve into the local development decisions during the last 100 years, you may be able to soon do so thanks to a national grant that will kick off two years of digging through files and books that have been hidden or forgotten in city basements.

Just under $134,000 from the National Archives and Records Administration will fund the processing of 751 cubic feet of historical government records that contains seven collections from City Council, City Planning, the Planning Commission, the Department of Public Works, the Historic Review Commission and the Urban Redevelopment Authority.

The full article may be found at https://bit.ly/3wVQv8O.

The public can find links to records that are currently digitized at pittsburghpa.gov/clerk/instructions.

A newsletter reader posted a comment recently expressing dissatisfaction that a set of images of Cook County, Illinois birth records has been removed from FamilySearch.org. Indeed, removal of any online records of genealogical value is sad, hut not unusual. Such contract changes are quite common on FamilySearch, Ancestry.com, MyHeritage, FindMyPast, and most all other online sites that provide old records online. Removal of datasets has occurred dozens of times in the past and I suspect such things will continue to happen in the future. I thought I would write a brief explanation.

In most cases, information of genealogical value obtained from government agencies, religious groups, and other organizations is provided under contractual agreements. The contracts specify what information is to provided, how it is to be made available, and the price the web site has to pay to the provider for the records. All contracts also have an expiration date, typically 2 years or 3 years or 5 years after the contract is signed. In this case, Cook County obviously had a contract with FamilySearch.org.

When the contract nears expiration, the two parties usually attempt to renegotiate the contract. Sometimes renewal is automatic but often it is not. Maybe the information provider (in this case, Cook County) decides they want more money or maybe they decide they no longer want to supply the data to the Web service. For instance, in the time the information has been available online, the information provider may have learned just how valuable the information really is. The information provider may decide to ask for more money or may even refuse to provide the information any more since the provider may have a NEW plan to create their own web site and offer the same information online on their new site for a fee.

Sure, that stinks for those of us who would like to have free information everywhere but it makes sense to most everyone else. I am sure the budget officer at Cook County thinks it makes sense.

Every contract renegotiation is different, but it is not unusual to agree to disagree. The contract ends and the web site provider legally MUST remove the information from their web site. In this case, the web provider was FamilySearch but the same thing also happens to all the other online sites that provide old records online.

Thousands of Americans have grown up with stories in the family that today's family members are descended from a Cherokee princess. If you heard those stories in your family, there is one fact that you need to know about the story:

It's a lie!

I am saddened to tell you that there was no such thing as an Indian princess, not in the Cherokee tribe nor in any other North American Indian tribe. They may have had Indian princesses in India, but not in North America. If you have a maharajah in your family tree then maybe you also have an Indian princess. If so, she did not live in North America.

The North American Indian tribes had no notion of royalty or anything like it. They did have chiefs, and a few of the chiefs may have even acted like kings. One Indian chief in Massachusetts and Rhode Island was even called "King Philip" by the English colonists in the 1670s. However, that title was bestowed by the white settlers. The Wampanoag leader's name really was Metacom although the English settlers often called him Philip. When he talked several other tribes into joining him in a war against the whites, the settlers dubbed him "King Philip." However, Metacom apparently never used that title.

The rules of chieftain succession varied from tribe to tribe. In some tribes, the eldest son of a chief may have become the new chief upon the death of his father. However, none of the tribes had kings, queens, princes, or princesses of any sort.

Perhaps the Indian woman who was most often called a "princess" was Pocahontas. She was the daughter of a powerful Algonquian Indian chief named Powhatan. However, Powhatan was not a king, and his sons and daughters were not princes or princesses. Pocahontas was not called a princess until after she married John Rolfe in Jamestown, Virginia, and then accompanied her husband on a trip to England. She was presented to King James I, the royal family, and the rest of London society. Apparently John Rolfe or someone else in the party decided to call her an "Indian princess" in order to increase her credibility amongst the English nobility. The title was fictitious.

The next time you hear someone claim to be descended from an Indian princess, I suggest that you quietly smile to yourself and let the person keep on talking. There's no sense in debunking a perfectly good fairy tale if the other person wishes to believe it.

At least you now know the truth.

The following announcement was written by FamilySearch:

FamilySearch published 11M more records from US Enlisted and Officer Muster Rolls and Rosters, 1916–1939, this week, plus sizeable collections from Georgia (Tax Digests 1787–1900), Illinois (Cook County Births 1811–2007), Louisiana (Orleans Cemetery Records 1805-1944), Massachusetts (Boston Tax Records 1822–1918), North Dakota (Cemetery Records 1877–1999), and Washington (Voting Records 1876–1940). Also added were over 500K Catholic Church Records from Argentina (Córdoba 1557–1974, La Rioja 1714–1970, Buenos Aires 1635–1981, etc.), and more from Chile 1710–1928, Costa Rica 1595–1992, El Salvador 1655–1977, Puerto Rico 1645–1969, and jurisdictions in Mexico (Guanajuato 1519–1984, Jalisco 1590–1979, Michoacán 1555–1996, Nuevo León 1667–1981, Puebla 1545–1977, San Luis Potosí 1586–1977, Sinaloa 1671–1968, and Sonora 1657–1994). Country collections were expanded for England (Middlesex Parish Registers 1539–1988 and Herefordshire Bishop's Transcripts 1583–1898) and a new collection for the 1891 France Eure Census. Search these new records and images by clicking on the collection links below, or go to FamilySearch to search over 8 billion free names and record images.

(The full list of all newly-added records is very long, too long to fit here. However, you can find the full list at: https://media.familysearch.org/new-free-historical-records-on-familysearch-week-of-1-june-2021/.)

About FamilySearch

FamilySearch International is the largest genealogy organization in the world. FamilySearch is a nonprofit, volunteer-driven organization sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Millions of people use FamilySearch records, resources, and services to learn more about their family history. To help in this great pursuit, FamilySearch and its predecessors have been actively gathering, preserving, and sharing genealogical records worldwide for over 100 years. Patrons may access FamilySearch services and resources free online at FamilySearch.org or through over 5,000 family history centers in 129 countries, including the main Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The following announcement was written by Progeny Genealogy:

The following announcement was written by the Oregon Health Authority, then rebroadcast by the IAJGS Public Records Access Monitoring Committee's mailing list:

Last fall, Oregon suffered from severe wild fires and as a result, many families lost all their vital records. As a result, the Oregon Center for Health Statistics has issued temporary rules to waive fees for certified copies of records for these families, in accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order 20-35.  The temporary rules were in effect September 14, 2020 through March 1, 2021.  Now the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) says Oregon wildfire survivors who need some certified vital records can get them for free starting Tuesday, June 1^st through October 28, 2021.

OHA says it will charge no fee for a search and issuance of up to three certified copies of vital records requested in connection with Oregon wildfires. Those records include: birth, death, marriage, divorce, domestic partnership or dissolution of domestic partnership records.

It says customers may order up to three certificates of each type of record at no charge.

OHA says the no-fee charge applies to certified copies ordered through the State Vital Records Office and all Oregon county vital records offices. It advises that in the “Reason for Needing Record” section on order forms, customers must list “Oregon Wildfires” to receive their records free of charge.

OHA reminds that county vital records offices “must charge the same fees as the state. The fee is $0 for up to three certified copies of vital records issued June 1, 2021 through October 28, 2021 to Oregonians affected by the Oregon wildfires.”

See: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/BIRTHDEATHCERTIFICATES/GETVITALRECORDS/Pages/VitalRecordsFeesforOregoniansAffectedbytheOregonWildfires.aspx

When ordering the certified copies of the vital record, the person ordering the certificates must state the reason for needing the record as “Oregon Wildfires." It is important that this information is noted on the order so the fee can be removed appropriately. If ordering over the Internet or phone, the certificate fee also will not be charged. You will still need to pay the expedite fee and Vendor fee.

The temporary administrative order Executive Order 20-35 issued September 14, 2020

Only individuals eligible to receive the vital records as outlined in law can order the certificates. Only those affected by wildfires that occurred in Oregon are eligible to get the certificates free of charge.

For more information go to: www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/BIRTHDEATHCERTIFICATES  or call  971-673-1190.

To access the previous postings about Oregon Wild Fires and Vital Records see the IAJGS Records Access Alert archives at: http://lists.iajgs.org/mailman/private/records-access-alerts  You must be registered to access the archives. To register for the IAJGS Records Access Alert go to: http://lists.iajgs.org/mailman/listinfo/records-access-alerts.  You will receive an email response that you have to reply to or the subscription will not be finalized. It is required to include your organization affiliation (genealogy organization, etc.)

Jan Meisels Allen
Chairperson, IAJGS Public Records Access Monitoring Committee

New laws in Maryland and Montana are the first in the nation to restrict law enforcement’s use of genetic genealogy, the DNA matching technique that in 2018 identified the Golden State Killer, in an effort to ensure the genetic privacy of the accused and their relatives.

Beginning on Oct. 1, investigators working on Maryland cases will need a judge’s signoff before using the method, in which a “profile” of thousands of DNA markers from a crime scene is uploaded to genealogy websites to find relatives of the culprit. The new law, sponsored by Democratic lawmakers, also dictates that the technique be used only for serious crimes, such as murder and sexual assault. And it states that investigators may only use websites with strict policies around user consent.

Montana’s new law, sponsored by a Republican, is narrower, requiring that government investigators obtain a search warrant before using a consumer DNA database, unless the consumer has waived the right to privacy.

The laws “demonstrate that people across the political spectrum find law enforcement use of consumer genetic data chilling, concerning and privacy-invasive,” said Natalie Ram, a law professor at the University of Maryland who championed the Maryland law. “I hope to see more states embrace robust regulation of this law enforcement technique in the future.”

You can read more in an article by Virginia Hughes in the New York Times at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/31/science/dna-police-laws.html.

The mystery of 16-year-old double murder in Sweden was solved last year using data from genealogy websites, a method first used to identify and capture the “Golden State Killer” in 2018. Detailing the case in a new study, scientists in Sweden say it’s the first time this technology has been used to catch a murderer outside the US.

On October 19, 2004, an eight-year-old boy was stabbed to death while walking to school in the city of Linköping in southern Sweden. The attacker then turned on a 56-year-old woman who had just left her home and witnessed the event, stabbing her several times and leaving her for dead. The attacker fled the scene but left behind a knitted cap and the butterfly knife he used to kill the victims. Although traces of the murder’s DNA had been traced on the weapon, detectives ran out of leads and the investigation dried up.

Swedish police then became aware of the arrest of Joseph James DeAngelo – the so-called “Golden State Killer” – using genetic information from the commercial genealogy website GEDmatch. In this notorious case, police compared genetic material left at the crime scene to the DNA of people who voluntarily submitted their gene information to public genealogy databases to trace their own family tree. This was able to identify a number of DeAngelo’s family members, eventually leading them to DeAngelo himself. After following the suspect, they then picked up an unidentified object he discarded to obtain his DNA, which then linked him to a number of the crimes. The novel method proved to be a remarkable success; DeAngelo will spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Intrigued by the story, Swedish police asked higher authorities whether they could solve the Linköping murders using this DNA-based genealogy method in a pilot study. They eventually got the green light in 2019, and a new investigation got underway.

Sifting through data on the platforms GEDmatch and FamilyTree, investigators found a number of distant relatives to the DNA picked up from the crime scene. A further investigation used this lead to identify two prime suspects: two brothers. More snooping revealed one of the brothers had a direct match to the crime scene DNA, affirming his guilt.

You can read all the details in an article at https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(21)00063-6/fulltext