This was posted 5 years 10 months 25 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

DNA Testing $89 (or $66.75 Ea for 4) (Was $129) + $30 S/H @ Ancestry

100
DNA Testing $89 (or $66.75 Ea for 4) (Was $129) + $30 S/H @ Ancestry
Go to Deal
Cashback
wisdomtooth on 08/06/2018 - 20:55 ancestry.com.au (335 clicks)
Last edited 08/06/2018 - 23:00

Ancestry is running their DNA testing sale again, for the lowest price yet if you buy one ($1 less than last time, in March), or even less — $66.75! — if you buy 4.

I'm considering doing this for the health data, and it seems Ancestry provides — by far! — the most comprehensive usable data at the moment (twice as much as its major competitor: 23andme).

Now, the question is: how to do this so that it doesn't end up costing you more than the price tag, and the data you pay for really belongs to YOU, and no one else: not Ancestry or any government.

The option I'm considering is buying a prepaid debit card with cash and connecting to the site via a VPN to pay for it (Tor may be an added layer of security). Of course a physical address will have to be provided to receive the 'spit kit', but it doesn't necessarily need to be your home one. Anyone seeing any holes in that strategy?

Health & Beauty DNA Test

Related Stores

Ancestry
Ancestry

closed Comments

  • puffinfresh on 08/06/2018 - 20:59
    +12

    Send in someone else's DNA. That way they'll never trace it back to you.

    • dylan345 on 08/06/2018 - 21:10

      That's so crazy it just might work

    • wisdomtooth on 08/06/2018 - 21:14
      +1

      Or… have "someone else" send your DNA 😉

    • Danstar on 08/06/2018 - 21:40
      +1

      This made me literally lol

  • mdsh on 08/06/2018 - 21:01
    +5

    Not sure what you mean by the data belonging to you and not Ancestry? Ancestry will have your DNA data and will use it as per its terms.

    • kahn on 08/06/2018 - 21:06

      Yeah, there has been good media coverage about the risks of such DNA tests, such as health insurance companies increasing your premiums when they find out you are a higher risk client.

      • wisdomtooth on 08/06/2018 - 21:11

        Precisely. Hence why the need to not make it (easily) traceable to you. Of course, they'll have your genetic data, but they won't know it's you (and neither will anyone else, but you).

        • mdsh on 08/06/2018 - 21:19
          +3

          It is quite possible that Ancestry would be able to identify you, or at least narrow down your identity to a handful of people, based only on your saliva sample. Giving a false name etc. would not prevent this.

          I say this because I have identified the unknown parent of an adoptee using Ancestry DNA results. And I'm just a researcher — Ancestry themselves would have a much greater capacity to identify people with all of the data they have.

        • wisdomtooth on 08/06/2018 - 22:05
          +2

          @mdsh: You may be right…

          Until recently, when people (often relatives) expressed concerns about DNA testing, genetic genealogy buffs would explain that the tester could remain anonymous, and that their test could be registered under another name; ours, for example.

          This means, of course, that since our relative is testing for OUR genealogy addiction, er…hobby, that we would take care of those pesky inquiries and everything else. Not only would they not be bothered, but their identity would never be known to anyone other than us.

          Let’s dissect that statement, because in some cases, it’s still partially true – but in other cases, anonymity in DNA testing is no longer possible.

          You certainly CAN put your name on someone else’s kit and manage their account for them. There are a variety of ways to accomplish this, depending on the testing vendor you select.

          If the DNA testing is either Y or mitochondrial DNA, it’s extremely UNLIKELY, if not impossible, that their Y or mitochondrial DNA is going to uniquely identify them as an individual. …

          The situation with autosomal DNA and the expectation of anonymity has changed rather gradually over the past few years, but with tidal wave force recently with the coming-of-age of two related techniques:

          • The increasingly routine identification of biological parents
          • The Buckskin Girl and Golden State Killer cases in which a victim and suspect were identified in April 2018, respectively, by the same methodology used to identify biological parents

          Therefore, with autosomal DNA results, meaning the raw data results file ONLY, neither total anonymity or any expectation of pseudonymization is reasonable or possible.

          Why?

          The reason is very simple.

          The size of the data bases of the combined mainstream vendors has reached the point where it’s unusual, at least for US testers, to not have a reasonably close match with a relative that you did not personally test – meaning third cousin or closer. Using a variety of tools, including in-common-with matches and trees, it’s possible to discern or narrow down candidates to be either a biological parent, a crime victim or a suspect. …

          In Summary

          Genealogical methods developed to identify currently living individuals has obsoleted the concept of genetic anonymity.

        • ozzpete on 09/06/2018 - 09:44

          I would expect authorities can still access it under certain circumstances.
          Could lead back to those bodies buried in your backyard … Or that ex of yours that vanished after you went out on boat fishing .

        • 1Kenobi on 11/06/2018 - 21:48

          @mdsh: geneology researcher?

        • mdsh on 11/06/2018 - 22:22

          @sian72: Yes, genetic genealogy.

  • DivZero on 08/06/2018 - 21:15
    +6

    PLEASE don't do this. You're not only giving away your own most private and personal information, but you're making the same decision for your closest blood relatives.

    Especially this company (owned by the Mormons BTW) will keep your data. Which of course means if they're hacked it's gone forever. You cannot get a refreshed DNA from anywhere. Two days ago it was revealed that MyHeritage was hacked. They claim it was only (only!) usernames, email addresses and hashed passwords. But next time it WILL be your DNA.

    Here's Ancestry.com: "The company explains that it shares users' DNA data with non-profit, business or government "collaborators", some of whom pay for the information."

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41470581

    • wisdomtooth on 08/06/2018 - 21:17
      -1

      Hence the need to make it anonymously 😉

      • DivZero on 08/06/2018 - 21:19
        +2

        If you're related to me, please do not do this. You're betting an awful lot on being able to remain anonymous.

    • Almost Banned on 08/06/2018 - 23:45
      +1

      Putting aside that it is simply untrue, why is 'owned by the Mormons' relevant to the deal?

      • [Deactivated] on 09/06/2018 - 09:08
        +1

        well I'd be more comfortable if it was owned by the Amish.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/06/2018 - 13:58

          lol. Got a good chuckle out of that one!

  • DivZero on 08/06/2018 - 21:34
    +2

    Your description says "the data you pay for really belongs to YOU, and no one else: not Ancestry or any government" .. but their terms of service, which you must agree to, say the opposite.

    The data belongs to them. Forever. They give you a limited time access to it. https://thinkprogress.org/ancestry-com-takes-dna-ownership-r…

  • bohn on 08/06/2018 - 21:34

    This is interesting
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/feb/25/viking-…

  • hazoir on 08/06/2018 - 21:38
    -3

    Any bargains going on tinfoil hats?

  • [Deactivated] on 08/06/2018 - 22:38
    +1

    No way I would ever get a DNA test done. Not because I have commited a crime (I have and my DNA is already on file, police gather DNA from people who have commited crimes as minor as DUI in WA.

    I would be more concerned that it might reveal something like an unknown medical condition that would affect me in the future. DNA is a very evolving technology and I think it is impossible to know how it might be evolve.

    • Unrvl on 08/06/2018 - 22:49
      +3

      so you wouldn't want to know if you have an upcoming medical condition?

      • kyteflyer on 09/06/2018 - 07:45
        +1

        I wanted to know. Too late for me though, I could have benefited from the knowledge some 45 years ago.

    • wisdomtooth on 08/06/2018 - 22:56
      +1

      USD vs AUD

  • siuol on 08/06/2018 - 23:45

    Very expensive shipping and handling - I will pass

    • wisdomtooth on 09/06/2018 - 07:38

      Tru dat. They don't show the shipping charges till the last screen, so I haven't actually seen it; just copied it from previous posts here on OzB.

  • kyteflyer on 09/06/2018 - 07:41
    +1

    I took on the ancestry DNA test with very positive results (as an adoptee with no knowledge of my birth family, I found two brothers and a slew of cousins). I was aware that the Mormons now have my DNA in perpetuity BUT I also have a copy of it, its downloadable from the Ancestry site (your account). There is no real benefit to be gained in pretending to be someone else, I believe. If you know who you are, and your family… I wouldnt bother. But I didnt, so it was worthwhile. I have not gained any greater information about myself medically. That is coming from the "new" relatives.

  • asa79 on 09/06/2018 - 08:54
    +1

    This is to see if bargaining is in your DNA

  • Wizard on 09/06/2018 - 09:22

    Big scam. Don't even look into it. They will clone you and then use the clone for organ harvesting like the Falun gong practitioners.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/06/2018 - 09:23

    I'm considering doing this for the health data,

    So they can sell it to someone else, like private health insurance companies.
    Even though these tests are wildly inaccurate (up to 40% false positives), any perceived increased risk may mean that your premiums could rise.

    and it seems Ancestry provides — by far! — the most comprehensive usable data at the moment

    Not if it's wrong.

    Forbes article
    http://fortune.com/2018/04/02/dna-test-kits-accurate-study/
    Nature's technical article
    https://www.nature.com/articles/gim201838#t1

  • [Deactivated] on 09/06/2018 - 14:06
    +1

    First thing that came into my mind was that an 'accused' father could prove, or disprove that he is or isn't the father of a child.
    Certainly many men (boys) have suffered an unfair (preposterous) financial burden paying to support children of extremely unethical/toxic women.

    • wisdomtooth on 14/06/2018 - 09:45

      The test for that is different; it's Y-line DNA:

      1. Y-line DNA – tests the Y chromosome which is passed from father to son, along, in most cases, with the surname. Only men can test for this, because only men have a Y chromosome, leaving female genealogists with Y chromosome envy, having to go and beg their fathers, brothers, uncles and male cousins to test for the surnames in question. We compare the results of the Y chromosome test between males to see if they match and are related in a genealogical timeframe.

      And that can be done anonymously:

      If the DNA testing is either Y or mitochondrial DNA, it’s extremely UNLIKELY, if not impossible, that their Y or mitochondrial DNA is going to uniquely identify them as an individual.

      Y and mitochondrial DNA is extremely useful in identifying someone as having descended from an ancestor, or not, but it (probably) won’t identify the tester’s identity to any matching person – at least not without additional information.

  • 2ndeffort on 09/06/2018 - 17:02

    Many potential insurers now reserve the right to take blood tests etc before they will give you coverage anyway. If you honestly complete the insurance forms and disclose that a direct relative dies of some kind of genetic disease or even just cancer they can ask for blood or other tests prior to giving you insurance. I understand that potentially somewhere in the future somebody might come up with an even darker Orwellian use for DNA data but as for now I'm not sure how you would be any worse off. If any of my relatives is secretly a serial murderer then I'm all for the cops catching and arresting them, anything I can do to help find them is OK with me.

  • 1Kenobi on 11/06/2018 - 21:45

    Op what did you decide to do?

    • wisdomtooth on 14/06/2018 - 09:47
      +1

      I didn't. I got caught by analysis paralysis, now the offer is gone, and I, sure as hell, ain't gonna pay $40 more for that! ;D

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join