So... The weird thing about DNA and genes is that the data, should you have access to it in it's original form, as samples of biological material, is never ano

So... The weird thing about DNA and genes is that the data, should you have access to it in it's original form, as samples of biological material, is never anonymous. The techniques that effectively anonymize genetic information, typically render it as an unusable data set for practical purposes. The only thing that makes DNA anonymous is constructing an unrelated set of hash keys as lookups, and then using these coded tokens as decoupled representational references to a remote system that mitigates requests. Even then, even without access to the direct data, the traits expressed COULD still accidentally identify certain members of the set very easily. How many albinos are in the set? How many male albinos? How many male albinos with blood type O positive? Oh look, it's Joe and it turns out he's a carrier for this other embarrassing genotype. Whoops, secret's out and everyone knows, and there's no going back! So phenotypes can still identify people inadvertently, and then provide opportunities for the enumeration of members, through process of elimination, inherently weakening what might become a theater of anonymity. But more terrible still, is, let's just say they give the raw genetic data up. Say you have a juicy tidbit of information you pulled from the collection of samples, and you think you know who it is. So you surreptitiously snag a hair follicle from them. It's them all right, and you can prove it conclusively. Maybe your a nice guy and you won't misuse this sort of advantage, but is that true for everyone at large, throughout society? With DNA, genomes and genetic evidence, you kind of just have to keep saying to yourself "this is not anonymizable, it will never be anonymous, we cannot truly de-identify anyone's DNA" and the sooner we come to terms with that, the better we'll get at dealing with this sort of data.