
Blackstone to Acquire Ancestry.com for $4.7B - peterlk
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ancestry-m-a-blackstone-group-idUSKCN2512ES
======
tosser0001
As someone who is interested in genealogy it's a bit frustrating to have so
many different services competing to hoover up various data sets and hold them
in their private fiefdoms, each of which requires a fee.

FamilySearch is the one major exception, mostly I believe because of their
deep religious obligations. The Mormons microfilmed a staggering collection of
data over the decades and it has all been getting digitized. The problem is,
some of their digitized collections are now no longer available because the
custodians of the original records seem to have signed deals with some of the
private genealogy services.

Ancestry and companies like them, do provide the service of indexing many of
these records which is no small task, but most of these documents are public
records, and I don't understand why they shouldn't be available to anyone. I
know for example FamilySearch has digitized images of all the Scottish
censuses back to the 1841 but you can't look at the original records any
longer. There are many other examples like this... original WWII draft cards
for the US used to be available there, now you have to go to Ancestry and pay
a fee.

~~~
hinkley
Ex-mormon and ex-partner of a (secular) genealogist reporting in.

Every bit of non-archival information the Mormons have should be annotated
with [citation needed]. There is an appalling amount of wishful thinking and
supposition in their genealogy data. You are in effect looking at research on
a par with a high school research paper. It's all sourced from people who have
been doing this for a short time and are seeking out indications that they are
done, not that they are correct.

Though I do agree that anyone who is willing to build a bomb-proof archival
facility is worthy of a degree of respect.

(Those salt dome film archives we have in the great plains are amazing too)

~~~
jjeaff
What non-archival information are you talking about? Everything I see on
familysearch is primary documents or text indexed directly. Anything else are
simply trees that others have created. And I definitely wouldn't trust that
info blindly because users do really get overzealous in trying to trace their
lineage. But family search allows you to attach primary documents to all names
so you can easily confirm whether that info is valid or not.

~~~
hinkley
Genealogist was constantly getting upset because someone would see a John
Johnson in the same town in roughly the same age bracket and say that's him,
make the link and move on without a second thought.

Problem is, our fascination with unique names is very recent. Our forebears
were highly unoriginal with names, language barriers (including illiteracy +
accents) would sometimes unintentionally see a person get a slightly different
name in a new town. She had a guy with three names, and a suspicion that when
he disappeared that he didn't die in a ditch, but instead finally changed his
name on purpose.

Looking through my mother's research, I found what I thought were first
cousins marrying, so I backed away slowly. Genealogist saw this a lot. Just
mark it done and don't think about it any more.

After some more time with genealogist I finally looked at it more closely.
This guy found himself a wife who was six days younger than his paternal
cousin of the same name, from an unrelated family. Apparently nobody in this
fucked up little town could figure out how to name their kids. Everyone named
a kid after grandma, or married someone with grandma's name, and half of them
had a sister named after her. Nine. There were nine women, by birth or
marriage, in 3 generations, with the same first name, in the same town. I
can't imagine family gatherings.

Ever wonder how you get 'Peggy' from Margaret? I don't anymore. Somewhere
there was Grandma Margaret who just wanted to nap in peace and so she
nicknamed her granddaughter Peggy so people would stop yelling her name.

~~~
SkyBelow
>I found what I thought were first cousins marrying, so I backed away slowly.

This was and, to an extent, still is quite normal, so I'm not sure why people
have such an issue with it. Genetic issues build up if you keep doing it for
generations, but unless the first cousins were raised together there is none
of the power imbalances at play. Those who were raised together have an effect
kick in so that they see each other as siblings and don't marry.

Even though in your case it didn't happen, it isn't something worth worrying
even had it occurred.

~~~
knicholes
If both parents have a recessive gene for a recessive genetic disorder, their
offspring will inherit that disorder. That's why people have such an issue
with it. It doesn't take multiple generations for this to happen. But I agree
that it'll get much worse if it keeps happening, as heterozygous couples will
eventually produce these recessive offsprings, who, when mated, will produce
children with these disorders.

~~~
arcticbull
> If both parents have a recessive gene for a recessive genetic disorder,
> their offspring will inherit that disorder. That's why people have such an
> issue with it.

This is simply not accurate. Or rather, it's partially accurate, and it's only
part of the story. The increase in risk isn't huge, and the amount it happens
effectively leads little to be concerned about.

"Contrary to widely held beliefs and longstanding taboos in America, first
cousins can have children together without a great risk of birth defects or
genetic disease, scientists are reporting today. They say there is no
biological reason to discourage cousins from marrying."

"'In some parts of the world,' the report says, '20 to 60 percent of all
marriages are between close biological relatives.'"

"Dr. Motulsky said researchers did not know why marriage between cousins was
viewed with such distaste in the United States. He said some of the revulsion
might have stemmed from the eugenics movement, which intended to improve the
human race by deciding who should be allowed to breed. The movement flourished
in this country early in the 20th century." [1]

[https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-
the-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-
of-1st-cousins.html)

~~~
throwawayklji
_" In some parts of the world,' the report says, '20 to 60 percent of all
marriages are between close biological relatives."_

Probably isolated areas, like small islands or remote settlements in the
wilderness where there is not much to choose from.

I've lived a year in such a place and, while there weren't genetic illnesses
that I was aware of, I wouldn't use that place as evidence of how inbreeding
is innocuous. Let's leave it at that.

~~~
arcticbull
> I've lived a year in such a place and, while there weren't genetic illnesses
> that I was aware of, I wouldn't use that place as evidence of how inbreeding
> is innocuous. Let's leave it at that.

So you... didn't see any genetic issues, thought that they were sub-par
humans, and are blaming inbreeding? That's not a great look on your part.

I suggest we stick to studies and data, and leave it there instead.

------
iav
I’m a former investor in the company. Many comments here focus on the DNA
business, but the company treats it as more as lead gen, a “cheap” way to get
new customers in and later to subscribe to their family tree product that
prints cash. The DNA business is breakeven but that’s a lot cheaper than
funding TV shows like Who Do You Think You Are - which was their old marketing
tool.

Funny anecdotes: \- they own findagrave.com which is exactly what it sounds
like \- they paid $50mm at one point to the Mormon church to effectively shut
down their only competitor (family search.org). They also offered ancestry.com
membership for free to every Mormon as well. The agreement handed over Mormon
church’s records making Ancestry’s database broader. \- they sometimes call
themselves a “Social Network for dead people” because you can opt to make your
family tree public, allowing you to see connections/overlaps between your
ancestors and others.

~~~
zwily
FamilySearch is alive and well. What are you talking about there?

~~~
iav
Here is the [link to the
investment]([https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/ancestr...](https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/ancestry-
com-joins-forces-with-lds-owned-
familysearch/article_4ce0e3fc-067a-5546-8f00-a0d0e111033a.html)). The way they
justified it to investors is that this removed the threat of FS ever competing
with then in their core business. Back when Ancestry was public, they listed
FS as their [#1
competitor]([https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1469433/000095012309...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1469433/000095012309028902/d68252orsv1.htm)).
Here is a [story]([http://www.ancestryinsider.org/2012/07/ancestrycom-laps-
fami...](http://www.ancestryinsider.org/2012/07/ancestrycom-laps-familysearch-
in.html)) from 2012 showing how the two companies were measured against each
other for key content digitizations

------
peterlk
This has huge, far reaching privacy concerns.

How many folks here would like to give their DNA information to private
equity?

~~~
tyingq
_" Blackstone is buying Ancestry.com from private equity firms Silver Lake,
Spectrum Equity and Permira."_

That cat was already out of the bag.

~~~
dannykwells
This - everyone freaking out over this is right, but ummmm, years too late.

------
pixxel
People who hand over their DNA won’t care in the slightest. For the rest of us
this confirms our understanding.

~~~
charia
Anyone who was born in California after 1983, has had their DNA collected by
the state.

[https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/05/08/california-
biob...](https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/05/08/california-biobank-
stores-baby-dna-access/)

~~~
justaguyhere
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/14...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/14/kuwait-
plans-to-create-a-huge-dna-database-of-resident-and-visitors-scientists-are-
appalled/)

This was four years ago, I wonder what the status is today.

Key sentences from the article:

 _There would be serious punishments for those who resist: Refusing the
compulsory testing could mean a year in jail or a $33,000 fine_

 _Kuwait 's government says the database could be used to fight terrorism and
crime_

Ahh yes - the old, oft used and worn out terrorism excuse ...

------
a3n
Beware changes to TOS. That seems a particularly dangerous dataset.

When you buy a rental property you have to abide by current leases until they
expire. There out to be something roughly similar for PII, acquisition,
including actively enduring that everyone can have their days expunged.

------
sillysaurusx
I changed my mind about DNA acquisition / privacy concerns after reading the
backstory of the Golden State Killer:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo)

Officers uploaded DNA from a rape kit and got back a family tree, then
investigated all 2,000 possibilities. Problem solved.

He’d eluded capture till the ripe old age of 77 or so, after having raped
around 50 women and murdering several by beating them to death with logs.

Can someone help me understand some concrete scenarios where DNA testing is
clearly a bad thing? Because it seems to be a net win for society. Leave your
DNA at a crime scene -> you’ve left your ID.

~~~
dvt
I don't mean to be dismissive, but engineers tend to simplify these problems,
as if the legal system is a perfect justice-dispensing black box. But that's
not how it works. This is a question of ethics and moral weights. This is why
we have things like _habeas corpus_ , chain of custody, rules about juries and
evidence, and all kinds of things.

DNA acquisition is rife with privacy concerns. The chance that some criminals
might elude capture is one of the implications of why, for example, we don't
implant everyone with a tracking chip, or require people to report their
whereabouts to the government. If everyone had a tracking chip, no one could
commit crimes any more, right?

This is a reductio argument, but it shows why what might seem like "sure-shot"
strategies (versions of which, in some cases, have been implemented in
authoritarian governments) were definitely not "net wins" for society.

~~~
sillysaurusx
I urge you to spend time reading the Wikipedia page of the golden state
killer. Put yourself in the victims’ shoes. Imagine someone waking you in the
middle of the night with a floodlight, shoving a gun in your face, screaming
at you to lay on the floor while they put dishes on your back, saying “If I
hear these fall, I’ll kill everyone.” Then he takes your loved one to the
livingroom and mercilessly rapes her for hours.

The ethical argument cuts both ways. Not only did that scenario happen, but it
happened _fifty times_. He was unstoppable by anything but DNA.

How, then, is it ethical to look someone in the eye and say “Your lover was
murdered, and we could find who did it, but we won’t”?

~~~
dvt
> The ethical argument cuts both ways. Not only did that scenario happen, but
> it happened fifty times. He was unstoppable by anything but DNA.

The atrocities committed by authoritarian governments by far exceed the
emotional force of your argument. From the Holocaust, to the Great Leap
Forward, to the Holodomor. We're talking so much suffering that you can't even
_comprehend_ it (think of it like a moral neutron star). _Millions_ murdered,
raped, and tortured over the course of _decades_. Given what history has
taught us so far, the ethical downsides of authoritarian carte blanche by
_far_ exceeds the downsides of erring on the side of protecting individual
rights.

~~~
sillysaurusx
DNA testing revealed that I am 47% Jewish, so yes, the holocaust argument is
particularly relevant. I have weighed these concerns. But you’re vaguely
gesturing towards atrocities and saying “There are good reasons, right there!”
And I just don’t see them.

Will you please walk me through a scenario that starts with DNA testing and
ends with the murder of millions of people? Because certain unnamed countries
seem to already be doing that, and they are either already using DNA or don’t
need it.

The argument here seems to be “if we let the US do this, there is a very real
risk of authoritarian overreach.” Sure, I see that. I just don’t buy it. What
specifically is the concern with, say, the US or Britain using DNA testing?

Even if the world mandated DNA testing tomorrow for the entire population, we
would largely be in the same position we’re already in, thanks to the internet
and smartphones.

I realize this is an unpopular stance. But is it mistaken?

~~~
cogman10
> Will you please walk me through a scenario that starts with DNA testing and
> ends with the murder of millions of people?

Imagine a genetic marker predisposes someone towards crime X. Now imagine that
in the hands of law enforcement.

If X happens one of the first things they'll do is round up everyone with
genes for X and try to place them at the scene of the crime.

The problem with that is that it means nothing. Just because a person is more
likely to do X does not mean they've done X.

How do we know that will happen? Because it already happens with DNA evidence
today. It weighs far more heavily in cases than it should. It may prove that
you were there, but it doesn't show what you did. And that's a problem. Juries
aren't generally good at realizing what DNA does and does not show.

You might think "Well, the defense should do a better job at debunking the DNA
evidence". Yeah, they should. However, it's a long uphill battle to educate
someone. Most people still think lie detectors and handwriting analysis
actually work. Hell, many people believe that "essential oils" have mystical
healing properties. You want to walk those people through the long process of
"correlation is not causation"? Good luck. All the prosecutor has to do is get
a DNA analysis finished which proves the presence and a cop to say "Oh, he was
really evasive when I arrested him".

The state of our justice system is perfectly summed up by this tweet.

"I actually wore a bandana covering my face, nose down, to go to the bank
today. Whole time I'm thinking, 'I've convicted people on less evidence than
this ...'", Andy McCarthy [0]

It takes staggering little evidence to convict someone of a crime and the
general public sees DNA evidence (due to shows like CSI) as absolute proof of
guilt.

This may not be "murder of millions" but it certainly wouldn't be a place I'd
want to live. I'd rather not be arrested by a lazy cop because I happened to
go to the bank the same day it was robbed.

[0]
[https://twitter.com/andrewcmccarthy/status/12581541951040184...](https://twitter.com/andrewcmccarthy/status/1258154195104018432?lang=en)

~~~
dvt
I very purposefully avoid hypotheticals which is why I didn't reply to
@sillysaurusx (because you're just debating fantasy), but this is a good post
and seems entirely plausible within the next century.

PS: I really wish people would stop mass downvoting @sillysaurusx. This is a
pretty good discussion.

~~~
sillysaurusx
(It's okay! Karma shmarma -- I enjoyed talking with you too. Lots of people
made some excellent points.)

------
cordite
Some commentary from another that actively does genealogy as a hobby:

i think it will be good cause the old guys were mis managing

In what ways?

I know several 3rd party developers that were just begging for the opportunity
to talk to anybody in the organization about how they could configure there
software to have the least impact possible on Ancestry, and they wouldn't
reply. And then one day they sent a Cease and Desist order, which alienated
thousands of customers who relied on those 3rd party apps. Stuff like that.
Nobody listens there.

ah the totally "This is our IP, you can't use it" vs "This is a sales
opportunity" mindset.

it's worse than that, they just didn't care.. and then they tried to sell
themselves and wanted to minimize costs, and blamed 3rd party guys for how
backed up their servers were and bad mouthed them. Tried to make themselves
look more profitable than they are bad culture thing. almost a monopoly and
it's a reputable private equity place - not some vulture company somebody that
will come in and challenge their business model but not tell them how to run
their business

------
djhaskin987
This is huge! Congratulations to a Ancestry! This is one of a few billion-
dollar-plus exits of a startup company in Utah over the past 2 years, with
others such as Qualtrics and PluralSight also coming to mind. We're starting
to see more unicorns come out of Utah. As someone who lives in Utah, that's
great!

~~~
jakebol
How is ancestry.com a startup at this point? It was founded in 1996.

------
yters
Why is genealogical data so valuable?

~~~
B4CKlash
There's an incredible amount of uses for high quality genealogical data:

-Actuaries/insurance companies: Longevity is largely heritable

-Drug Development/Pharma: The newest drugs are all gene therapies and data sets provide amble grounds for deep neural networks. Identifying potential causes of curable conditions, or identify a marketable consumer base.

-Police/Surveillance: I believe a genealogy database is actually how the Golden State killer was caught.

Certainly there are other use cases, but these are the most obvious to me.

~~~
cblconfederate
Is the first legal?

The second .. there are big public DNA databases, and they are adding more and
more people every day

The third one seems the most important

------
Evidlo
I'm surprised Wikitree isn't mentioned in this thread anywhere. Its a
nonprofit.

------
naruvimama
Can we not have our DNA information deleted on demand. At least within the EU
it comes under GDPR.

Any leaks make ancestory responsible, that can be huge.

~~~
simonebrunozzi
I coined a phrase about it:

"Anything that can be leaked, it eventually will."

------
moneywoes
Do any of these sources work for new immigrants?

------
mesozoic
Well this sounds nefarious. A group buddy buddy with governmental and NGO
agencies owning ancestry. What could go wrong...

------
RocketSyntax
mistake. their data is trash. contains less than 1% of genome.

~~~
kobbad
Yep, agreed. If you look at companies like Nebula Genomics [1] (disclosure:
I'm a founder) or Dante Labs [2], they're doing whole genome sequencing for
comparable prices. I'm not sure why we aren't seeing a more prevalent shift to
next-gen seqencing. [1] [https://nebula.org](https://nebula.org) [2]
[https://dantelabs.com](https://dantelabs.com)

------
Dirlewanger
Ah yes, a PEG purchasing a company. History has shown that this will obviously
result in good things for the company!

~~~
hans
Thought same: with covid depressed co’s the leveraged buyouts / peg activities
driven by politically connected free cash is coming big time .. talent will
get suckered into debt so these players take it

