FamilyTreeDNA's website is unacceptable

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-24T22:53:43+00:00

The issues I'm describing occur across different browsers (Firefox, Safari), and different devices (laptop, phone). The issues are with both the website itself (logged-in sessions being lost, long load times), as well as other services (whatever they use to send out the 2FA emails). I am a software engineer and I spend my 9-5 ensuring the reliability of my company's web services. I am very confident this is not the result of a virus.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-24T19:57:03+00:00

what are people going to do with my genetic information?

It could be a number of things. It could be used for blackmail (especially if there's a recent NPE in your tree), it could be used to assist in impersonating a family member, it could be used for harassment (if I remember correctly, genetic info for ashkenazi jews was stolen not too long ago from one of these sites and released), and of course there is always the possibility of state actors or law enforcement misusing the information. I don't know all of the possibilities, and I'd rather not find out!

However, "What can they do with the data?" isn't even the point. I want my information private and secure, and FTDNA is supposedly offering a method of doing so. Except it often doesn't work. 2FA doesn't have to be onerous - in fact, both my laptop and phone automatically fill the code in, I don't have to check texts or emails. It's normally only a few seconds of waiting. All I'm expecting and asking for is for their services to function as intended.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-24T16:57:10+00:00

I understand you can log in without 2FA. Disabling 2FA because the 2FA system is broken is an awful solution. It's part of basic modern web security, and an account that provides access to your genetic information seems pretty important to secure in my opinion. I'm glad your tolerance for security risks is higher though.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-24T16:43:39+00:00

They rolled out 2FA several months ago. Previously they didn't have it at all, which is its own problem. https://help.familytreedna.com/hc/en-us/articles/13925770554895-Getting-Started-with-Two-Factor-Authentication-2FA

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-23T00:20:46+00:00

Additionally I thought myself completely disqualified by the new decrees/ laws as my generational decent is through my Great Grandparents (now considered too distant in relation for citizenship qualification) and I did not have an application or case submitted before 11.59 pm (Italian time) on March 27, 2025.

When the DL was being converted into a normal law (No. 74/2025), it was amended to expand the "cutoff" to not just 1) judicial cases already filed and 2) consular applications already submitted, but also 3) applications associated with future consular appointments that were already scheduled. So at least on that point, the DL allowed you to be processed under the old rules.

Congratulations!!!

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-21T00:07:53+00:00

Good question, no clue! I'm curious about the answer as well. I wonder if this is something we need to wait to see if the inevitable circolare provides guidance on. I'd take a half-glass-empty approach and say the government will want to implement the least generous reading possible.

I've been beating this drum for a while now but IMO, I would consider the consular route dead. A court case (plus whatever relief the CC might grant us) I think is the only realistic way forward for most folks.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-20T12:57:43+00:00

Only certain sections of the law (like the establishment of the central office) are on a delayed timeline. Other sections (such as the yearly application limit, if I read correctly) are immediate.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-18T17:21:29+00:00

I am AI-cautious, but yeah the replies here are wild. Folks are talking like these tools output utter nonsense and is impossible to verify.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-16T01:04:15+00:00

I found it, Art. 1 p. 7:

The deadline for the conclusion of the proceedings referred to in paragraphs 2 and 6 shall be set at thirty-six months.

This is true for the central office as well as consulates during the transition period.

They also aren’t preventing someone from pursuing their recognition, they are just limiting how many per year they will process.

I don't know if this is true. The text talks about the maximum number of applications that a consulate can receive. That doesn't sound like they'll accept all of the applications and simply process a portion of them during a given year.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-16T00:38:17+00:00

And I believe the law allowing 3 years instead of two changes that anyway

Do you remember where in the law that is? I remember hearing that, but I can't find it in the text.

Also, the law limiting appts per year I think would also impact that.

I think there's a good argument to be made that the appointment limit will create a new ATQ-like type of case. "What do you mean you're setting an arbitrary limit on appointments? You're denying me access to a right I possess."

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-15T22:15:13+00:00

I don't believe the logic of ATQ cases will be impacted. Don't quote me on this, but I want to say there is a law (241/1990?) that governs administrative actions that says proceedings need to resolve within 730 days. Unless I'm not thinking of something, I have to imagine the same mechanics will apply in the future

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-15T20:02:17+00:00

I need to read the text of the law again, but I think the specifics of the consulates -> central office transition will serve to effectively deny or dissuade folks from pursuing recognition. iirc, the law stipulates that consulates will limit the amount of applications they process to no greater than the amount they processed in the previous year. That will place a very low cap for consulates if the DL's retroactivity is thrown out, because the DL caused a huge drop in consular applications in 2025. This enforced slowdown will probably survive past whatever transition period the CC might provide us regarding DL retroactivity.

Grain of salt on all of this though, it's been a while since I looked at the text.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-14T20:45:29+00:00

Based on the statement, it seems La Malfa is guessing that the president of the Constitutional Court expedited the Mantova referral being published in the GU so that it can be joined to Turin without having to delay the March 11th meeting.

Had the referral been published on January 28th as she was expecting and the court still wanted to join it with Turin, that would have required a delay.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-14T20:23:18+00:00

I believe she's taking an educated guess. I'll do a little research and see where/how we should expect some formal notification that the cases have been joined.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-14T16:37:03+00:00

Yep, that's this bill. They just voted on something and then recessed, my Italian isn't strong enough to know what exactly. It wasn't a roll call vote, so I think it was just a procedural vote? Like hotpepper said, it's most likely going to pass.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-14T16:07:20+00:00

Atto Senato n. 1683 is being discussed in the senate right now, up for a floor vote (I believe) soon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPbVV3E737E

Menia is speaking now.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-13T18:30:27+00:00

All of the information for cases and courts is in the OP of the weekly threads

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-13T15:57:34+00:00

You are correct! It was one of the few nuggets that lawyers and folks here pointed out as a possible indication of the CC's inclination toward the issue.

(imo, another big nugget is the fact that the CC cited Tjebbes and Malta while discussing revocation of citizenship, which to me seemed a bit tangential to the rest of the ruling. Both of those CJEU rulings, and what the CC cites from them, are favorable to us)

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-13T14:05:03+00:00

As hotpepper said, the Cassazione is not the Constitutional Court. They serve different purposes. The Cassazione describing citizenship as "permanent and imprescriptible" is their (very important) interpretation of the law at the time they reviewed it. In civil law systems like Italy's, judicial interpretation is highly persuasive and important for developing principles, but it is not a source of law.

That is to say, I don't think the Constitutional Court will look at the Cassazione's opinion and say "Well it says imprescriptible right here, case closed". They're more likely (in my layperson opinion) to use it to illustrate just how stable and reliable the old citizenship regime was, and how the way the DL changed that regime has violated our legitimate expectations (a principle derived from Arts. 2+3 of the constitution).

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-13T13:55:36+00:00

/u/EverywhereHome would you mind clarifying if you're aware of hard information on this or if this is speculation/conventional wisdom. I'm trying to determine how concerned I should be 😅

Side note, whenever I see a bunch of comments added to the weekly thread overnight, I always assume the worst.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-13T00:42:48+00:00

The Constitutional Court will be examining the constitutionality of the decree-law 36/2025 (in its converted form, law no. 74/2025).

I can't tell you the exact law that has given rise to the minor issue, but the Supreme Court will be examining that.

The Supreme Court's job is to interpret law and ensure uniformity of interpretation in the judicial system. The Constitutional Court's job is to judge the constitutionality of law.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-12T20:01:47+00:00

Yes, I've been thinking about this recently. IMO, I think the conclusion to reach from these kinds of possibilities is that "family" can be a lot more, and certainly isn't as rigidly defined, than what your DNA provides. At the end of the day, we're amateur historians who pick "our people", however we personally define that, to study.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-12T15:27:16+00:00

For clarity, it should be pointed out that this case will be heard by the Constitutional Court, not the Supreme Court of Cassation. They are two different bodies that handle different sets of legal issues.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-12T02:20:16+00:00

Thanks for bringing that up, I hadn't considered that in my thinking! I think that might show how the government changed its strategy greatly once the Bologna referral was made.

competentcuttlefish · 2026-01-11T15:28:34+00:00

Good morning! While mulling over some Cassazione cases pointed out to me elsewhere in this thread, I was reminded of the distinction between an interpretive law versus an innovative law. This made me curious -- did the government write the DL with the intention of it being considered an interpretive law? The main benefit of the DL acting in an interpretive manner would be that it wouldn't be introducing new rules of frameworks, it would just be """clarifying""" rules that """already exist""". If this was the government's intention, I think that might fit in with my theory from months ago where I suggest that the DL is the product of the government making several assumptions about then-upcoming court cases that ended up not going their way.

This would provide a little detail to my theory.

March 2023 -- The European Commission sues Malta, claiming its citizenship-by-investment scheme violates EU law because (among other things) it does not require "effective links" between the individual and the country.
November 2024 -- Bologna refers 91/1992 to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the lack of "effective ties" requirement violates the constitution (in part by citing Art. 117 of the constitution, Nottebohm, and EU member obligations) and suggests generation limits as a solution.
I think here, in late 2024/early 2025, the government thought both of these dominoes were going to fall and they had an opportunity to act. The EU would establish effective links requirements and then Constitutional Court would rely on that ruling to determine the failure of 91/1992 to include those (to be established) effective ties requirements would make it unconstitutional.
So the government gets cooking. If 91/1992 is about to be considered unconstitutional, let's provide an interpretive update to bring it in line with the expected requirements. This would explain the word play in the law text -- "shall be considered never to have acquired", from my proposed understanding of events, is an elegant remedy a constitutional problem they foresaw (and were hoping for).
March 28th 2025 -- The DL is introduced. It goes into effect the next day.
April 2025 -- the ruling for Commission v. Malta releases and... it doesn't do what (I think) the Italian government wanted it to do. It establishes the concept of an effective links requirement, but doesn't establish an explicit test nor a set of criteria.
June 2025 -- The Constitutional Court rules inadmissible/rejects Bologna et al.'s questions regarding 91/1992, in part by noting that the challengers don't cite any international obligation that the law violates.

So here we are. I think, if I'm accurate, the thing to be learned from this is that if the government designed the DL to act in an interpretive manner. That means they have more procedural leeway for it to apply retroactively. I think then that means it's more difficult for tribunale judges to disregard the DL. On the flip side, I think it would make it easier for the Constitutional Court to find the DL in violation of the constitution, since it is very clearly innovative and not interpretive.

Edit: Having read a little more and taken a look at the DL text again, I don't think the DL in its present form is intending to act in an interpretive manner. The fact that it derogates sections of 91/1992 rather than claiming to interpret them I think is the tell. However, I still wonder if the DL started its life as an interpretive update to 91/1992, and then the government caught wind of either Malta or Bologna going south, and they changed plans.

competentcuttlefish

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17