A Private Equity Firm Bought Ancestry, and Its Trove of DNA, for $4.7B (cnn.com)
- Reference: 0134471517
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/20/08/07/1955218/a-private-equity-firm-bought-ancestry-and-its-trove-of-dna-for-47b
- Source link: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/06/tech/facebook-work-from-home/index.html
> The announcement was made in a press release published earlier this week by Blackstone, which shared it had "reached a definitive agreement to acquire Ancestry from Silver Lake, GIC, Spectrum Equity, Permira, and other equity holders for a total enterprise value of $4.7 billion." Ancestry is known for its genealogy and home DNA testing services. According to its website, the company has 3 million paying subscribers, 27 billion records, and 100 million family trees. The website also says that over 18 million people have been DNA tested through the company.
>
> "To be crystal clear, Blackstone will not have access to user data and we are deeply committed to ensuring strong consumer privacy protections at the company," a spokesperson for Blackstone told Motherboard in an email. "We will not be sharing user DNA and family tree records with our portfolio companies." A spokesperson from Ancestry also said the company's relationship with its users would remain the same.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/06/tech/facebook-work-from-home/index.html
Value? What Value? We did it because we could (Score:3)
> Blackstone will not have access to user data and we are deeply committed to ensuring strong consumer privacy protections at the company.
So what possible value could this data base have other than a list of people to target with targeted advertising?
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps world domination by creating the perfect human?
Re: (Score:2)
> ... the perfect human
using DNA from people stupid enough to give up their DNA ....
Then again, by some people's definition that would be the "perfect Human".
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't eliminate the possibility of pressuring Ancestry to make a deal with an outside company.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently someone thinks it has $4.7B worth of value.
Regardless of what it might be used for.
Insurance (Score:3)
Any insurance company would give their collective right arms for DNA that shows which customers are likely to die of something prematurely.
Re: Insurance (Score:2)
Except that the DNA Ancestry has won't show that. Even 23&Me's data won't show that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just as cynical as most people around here, but there is a reasonable possibility that the equity firm is buying the 3 million paying users.
Link to article is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
More info here, [1]https://www.barrons.com/articl... [barrons.com]
[1] https://www.barrons.com/articles/blackstone-group-is-buying-ancestry-for-4-7b-51596660098
Almost "Pre Crime" (Score:3)
Search the DB for family lines with lots of successful entrepreneurs over the last 200-300 years. Then find their descendants and give them seed money and stock options...
Re: (Score:3)
> Search the DB for family lines with lots of successful entrepreneurs over the last 200-300 years. Then find their descendants and give them seed money and stock options...
Or, alternatively, make sure they are unemployable and unfundable (rumors can do wonders) to make sure they do not compete. This is far more in line with the usual approach of the 2nd and 3rd rate prevalent "business people" (and the 5th rate fake "business man" currently trying to be in power of the US), than doing anything _for_ anybody or, heavens beware, for society.
Hopefully... (Score:2)
...this inspires folks to consider the lifecycle of their data a little more carefully in the future.
Re: (Score:1)
It won't. Sadly.
Data Privacy (Score:3)
And this is exactly why I've not submitted anything to them, or done 23 and Me, etc.
Can't trust anybody anymore with our data.
It's bad enough with credit cards and phones, but our biometrics? No thanks.
This started with Radio Shack (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember: back in the '70s and '80s whenever you shopped at Radio Shack they automatically asked for your name, phone#, and address as you checked out, even if you were using cash. Most people automatically complied without thinking. After all, nobody had heard of data mining and Radio Shack was presumed to be just building their mailing list for ads and catalogs.
Then one day Radio Shack went bankrupt.
...and...
People were surprised when one of the creditors asked for the customer database, and the courts approved it, admitting it was a thing of value which the skeleton of the company still possessed. Suddenly people were asking questions about who was buying data about them and how it would be used.
Funny thing is that as time went by the shock wore off and when things like Facebook came along nobody even seemed to care anymore even though the ways such info could be abused had multiplied exponentially. Now, anybody who is not spraying all their personal info everywhere like some tomcat, in exchange for "free" internet site access, is considered weird or paranoid...
Radio Shack's demise, however, put everybody on notice that any info they give to a company becomes a "thing of value" to that company and its creditors and ultimate control of that information is no "promise" by any corporate boss or hired flak will stand up in any later sale or liquidation of the company.
All your DNA belongs to us (Score:2)
I mean there isn't really anything more to say.
Why do these companies need our names? (Score:3)
Why must one give these companies his name ? This is, what held me from participating — had they simply assigned a unique (randomly-generated) identifier to each kit sold in pharmacies, I would've probably used one by now.
They need neither your name, nor address to communicate results back to you — you go to their site, enter the identifier and download the results, anonymously. Through tor, if you care.
The FBI could, probably, still locate you (or come close) by tying the particular kit with the time and place of sale — but that'd be much harder (especially, if you paid cash), and require multiple affidavits.
And, by the way, this gratuitous disrespect for privacy is also why I'm not donating blood and not asking for a COVID-19 test...
Re:Why do these companies need our names? (Score:4, Informative)
> 2ee83620-6097-4ac0-a85d-c87dff5976ea, you have a new DNA Match! You are 1st to 3rd cousin with 20b063ed-50a5-49e0-b2e9-2dfc46aac837!
More seriously, people use Ancestry and their ilk to find DNA matches, so as to build up family trees and find relatives they may not know about. It is difficult to do this when anonymous!
Re:Why do these companies need our names? (Score:4, Informative)
> 2ee83620-6097-4ac0-a85d-c87dff5976ea, you have a new DNA Match! You are 1st to 3rd cousin with 20b063ed-50a5-49e0-b2e9-2dfc46aac837!
...would you like to send him a message?
> people use Ancestry and their ilk to find DNA matches, so as to build up family trees and find relatives they may not know about. It is difficult to do this when anonymous!
Difficult, but not impossible. You could give them your name, but you shouldn't have to .
Re: Why do these companies need our names? (Score:2)
Depends on the nature of the anonymity. FamilyTreeDNA make a big thing of their DNA samples being given a pseudo-anonymous label, so that neither storage nor lab can identify which sample belongs to which person.
They claim that the translation to actual name is done only on the front end, so that you have access to names but not to the internal IDs.
There may be additional layers in there.
That way, in principle, you can see the results for you but you can't identify the storage, and they can see the results
Ancestry has a database of garbage (Score:2)
Tests with identical twins (monozygotic twins) have shown that ancestry doesn't even manage to sample their DNA to within the 99% confidence. Only LivingDNA is worse in their lab/testing. The "treasure trove" of data is a mess of guesswork. The number of markers they test is also tiny so unless they keep the sample against users wishes they don't have much of value.
Re: (Score:2)
For thinks like marketing and generating suspicion, 50% accuracy or even worse are quite enough. There is a reason they were bought.
Re: Ancestry has a database of garbage (Score:2)
A username of a few hundred million, each paying two hundred a year to access badly typed up certificates and poor quality data other users have entered - that's a reason.
$20 billion a year for doing almost nothing.
Five billion, the cost of purchase, is the income for a single financial quarter.
Riiight. (Score:2)
"To be crystal clear, Blackstone will not have access to user data and we are deeply committed to ensuring strong consumer privacy protections at the company," a spokesperson for Blackstone told Motherboard in an email. "We will not be sharing user DNA and family tree records with our portfolio companies." A spokesperson from Ancestry also said the company's relationship with its users would remain the same."
-----
Bane: "Really? Then why are you people here?"
Blackstone will not have access to user data (Score:2)
> "To be crystal clear, Blackstone will not have access to user data"
Yet. Everyone's watching.
> A spokesperson from Ancestry also said the company's relationship with its users would remain the same.
But what about in the other direction, the users relationship with the company? You know, the one where the users are (chuckle) in control of their data and (think they) own it?
Y'know, that brings up an interesting point -- if Disney has Intellectual Property control over an imaginary mouse that lasts 100+ years after the original creator's death, then why doesn't a person with their own DNA have the exact same thing?
Oh that's right -- the person didn't create anything, t
Re: (Score:2)
>> "To be crystal clear, Blackstone will not have access to user data"
> Yet. Everyone's watching.
Indeed. Will probably not even take a year.
Who believed giving their DNA away was a good idea (Score:2)
Now is (again) a chance to consider your assumptions. Maybe listen to some experts next time, even if they tell you things you do not want to hear?
All your base! (Score:3)
This give a whole new meaning to "All your base are belong to us"
'Posession is nine-tenths of the law' (Score:2)
If they own the company and it's assets then the assertion that the DNA database 'won't be made available to them' is utterly toothless. If they want to farm it out to whoever they want for however much then they'll do it and no one can stop them. If they sell it outright to FBI, HLS, CIA, etc, we'll never even know about it.
By the way if you gave up your very personal DNA to a company like this then I think you're an idiot. All it takes is a false positive or a screwed-up DNA test in a forensic lab and su
hmmm. (Score:2)
Blackstone is well known for offshoring things to China.
I wonder what will happen here?
We will not be sharing user DNA and family tree (Score:2)
I see. The only thing they're interested in, is uncle Bubba's family tree.
Ha-ha (Score:4, Insightful)
Suckers!
Serves you right for trusting a corporation with your most intimate details.
Re: (Score:1)
We're constantly shedding our DNA. It's not much of a secret.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point. the individual data points are not secret or easily hidden. It's the accumulation of data into a trove where it becomes problematic, as least while we continue to allow data warehousing to go without any regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I specially like "To be crystal clear, Blackstone will not have access to user data and we are deeply committed to ensuring strong consumer privacy protections at the company," a spokesperson for Blackstone told Motherboard. If you believe that Blackstone - a company with a reputation for screwing people if it makes them $2 - would spend $4.7B on something they aren't going to market, I have a bridge to sell you.
Re: (Score:1)
> If you believe that Blackstone - a company with a reputation for screwing people if it makes them $2 - would spend $4.7B on something they aren't going to market, I have a bridge to sell you.
I thought they would at least hold out for tree-fiddy.
Re:Ha-ha (Score:4, Informative)
If they have it, they will sell it.
It is simple.