Surprised not to see these ...

[The Rhymer]

The newsletter has arrived as per usual.

The last one came a day or so before the story about the mixed-up babies broke, so I rather expected it this time, but, no, nothing, not even a criticism of the pinpointing of "the place in Ireland where his maternal family came from". (Tell me more, I want to test with that company!!)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3njqd9nl9o

Then there's the story from Bishop Auckland, for which I'm sure you, Peter, must have got the 1911 Census out:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewllz7wv00o

The first article was published on 30 July, but I thought you'd be waiting for a resolution to share your thoughts.

And, finally, should we be frightened for our information:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gm08nlxr3o

 

[peter]

Fewer than half of the stories that I come across actually make it into the newsletter.

 

[The Rhymer]

I can understand that, but another article today is about a DNA company which has disappeared, with all its clients' information:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7wl7rpndjo

I don't suppose there's much chance of Ancestry - the only one I've tested with - going under, but, having said I didn't want anything more than my genealogy done with my sample, even then I wondered how trustworthy they really are, or anyone who works for them.

How many strangers do we trust regularly? All sorts of people from bus/taxi/train drivers and pilots to restaurant staff or beauticians? It always amazes me that no children are given poisoned, or at the very least tampered with, sweets when they go out on Hallowe'en (and I give thanks that it hadn't caught on when mine were of an age to want to go!)

 

[peter]

Life is risky - nobody would do anything if they considered all the things that might possibly go wrong. Because of my background I always avoid unnecessary risks (for example, I'm usually the only one wearing a mask in a supermarket), but you cannot avoid all risk - everything you eat, everything you do, involves a risk of one sort or another.

I have personally tested with 23andMe, but I'm not worried about the security of my DNA because 23andMe is based in the US. which has similar privacy legislation to the UK and the EU (and much bigger fines for transgressors). If any LostCousins members have bought a 23andMe test it wasn't on my recommendation - 23andMe tests have always been relatively expensive, and of only minor interest to genealogists because most of their users do not opt in to matching.

Finally, Ancestry is a genealogy company - 23andMe is a health company. They both sell DNA tests, but they are in very different markets. Sometimes the best way to deal with a small fire is to wait for it to go out.

 

[The Rhymer]

Life is risky - nobody would do anything if they considered all the things that might possibly go wrong. Because of my background I always avoid unnecessary risks (for example, I'm usually the only one wearing a mask in a supermarket), but you cannot avoid all risk - everything you eat, everything you do, involves a risk of one sort or another.

That was exactly what I was saying, so you don't need to tell me.

But we can limit our risks, can't we? like wearing a mask in a supermarket?

 

[peter]

But we can limit our risks, can't we? like wearing a mask in a supermarket?

It's not solely about limiting risk, it's about balancing risk and reward. Someone who only looks at one side of the equation will probably make decisions that are sub-optimal (or even disastrous).

Another problem is that people are generally very poor at assessing risk. For example, after 9/11 people in the US flew less and drove more - which according to this research paper led to as many as 2300 extra road deaths.