4 ms·
I always kinda curious about dna heritage testing. Until I saw John Sotos' talk at Def Con 25 [0]. He highly recommands you keep your genome private. And that y
by globuous 9y ago
I always kinda curious about dna heritage testing. Until I saw John Sotos' talk at Def Con 25 [0]. He highly recommands you keep your genome private. And that you only give it away if it is vital (aka you're really sick).
The talk is absolutely amazing, probably the most captivating talk I have ever watched (thanks HN commenter that shared it a while ago). But anyway, Sotos specifically tells his audience that, as a security measure, they shouldn't release their dna to heritage services. Because it isn't vital.
Anywhi, great talk, highly recommand it although Sotos mentions DNA testing for heritage for a few seconds only, so slightly off topic :)
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY
- thaumaturgy 9y agoThis is a really fascinating talk, thank you for linking to it.
- cf498 9y agoIt is yet again disturbing, that two month after having watched the talk, the part I took away, besides never give away your personal data, was this https://youtu.be/HKQDSgBHPfY?t=2371 https://youtu.be/HKQDSgBHPfY?t=2371 or to be more precise this https://youtu.be/HKQDSgBHPfY?t=2568 https://youtu.be/HKQDSgBHPfY?t=2568
- searine 9y agoI disagree. Mostly for one reason alone. Genetic association testing. To get statistical power necessary to associate variants with complex genetic traits, we need very large sample sizes (hundreds of thousands are good, millions of individuals are better). If everyone clings to their genomes in fear of what bad-actors might discover, we will never discover anything at all. Cures included.
- adenadel 9y agoI also disagree. If a bad-actor wants your genetic information they just need to go somewhere you've been. You're constantly shedding DNA.
- logfromblammo 9y agoThe DNA you leave behind when you touch things can actually be more useful than just the cellular DNA isolated from a genome test and put into a database. DNA analysis of your microbiota can indicate more than just what you are or who you are, but also your current health status, where you have been, and who you associate with. It would also be one way to distinguish between identical twins.
- neonnoodle 9y agoIf a bad actor wants to rob you, they can break into your house. But my door still has a lock on it.
- behringer 9y agoThe problem is. The bad actors are stealing your data from the dna companies, not from your house...
- darpa_escapee 9y agoThere's a reason databases exist. Consolidated and normalized data is light years easier to obtain and less time consuming than seeking out individual pieces of disparate data.
- klmr 9y agoYou’re right. I also find it telling that John Sotos doesn’t give a single argument for his recommendation. He simply “proclaims” that you shall not share your genome “without good reason”. He says that everything in life is a cost–benefit balance but that’s an empty phrase. What are the costs in this scenario? I’m not saying they are nil, but they’re probably negligible compared to the benefits you mention, especially considering that theft of genomic material would be trivial for a vested actor. No need for you to share anything willingly.
- jdtang13 9y agoAny tl;dr's or good insights for a lazy non-video watcher?
- jobigoud 9y agoCancer research will soon allow us to modify DNA in people in a very selective manner, using If-then-else logic. When this technology is available, attackers will be able to perform biological exploits targeting individuals, families, ethnic groups or entire species. Many examples are given of some conditions that are controlled by genetics and why an attacker would want to deploy them. Animal right activists making everybody allergic to meat, radical islamists rendering women unable to expose their skin to sunlight, a state ruining an enemy by inducing learning disabilities in children, an activist embarrassing his political opponent by giving him a fishy smell, etc. Attacks can be immediate, delayed like a time bomb or even target the germ line. One recurring recommendation is to keep your genome secret unless you have a medical reason.
- klipt 9y agoOnly works if you keep all your relatives' genomes secret too. After all, any attack that works on them has a high chance of working on you too.
- jobigoud 9y agoOoh, I am currently reading a recent paper of his: Biotechnology and the lifetime of technical civilizations https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.01149 https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.01149
- vbuwivbiu 9y agoThere's no way you can keep your genome private in the long term. Even today anyone can get DNA samples from you without your knowledge or consent, but in the near future it will be trivial to collect and sequence anyone's DNA using an iPhone. Besides, the same knowledge that makes attacks possible also makes defense possible.
- marchenko 9y agoSurreptitious DNA collection requires some level of targeted effort: someone must have a prior interest in you specifically, which is unlikely for most persons. Uploading your DNA to a database exposes you (and your relatives) to all sorts of Birthday-Problem-like mischief from persons and organizations trawling the database. The best defense to the current threat landscape (privacy violations related to insurance, employment, and the law) is to define your genome-related queries as narrowly as possible and type/sequence only those relevant loci/regions.