4 ms·

This is a super interesting discussion. Both sides make good points. I wonder if in the future cost and technology of sequencing will evolve so much that somebo

by comboy 9y ago

This is a super interesting discussion. Both sides make good points. I wonder if in the future cost and technology of sequencing will evolve so much that somebody will start harvesting as much data as possible from places like metro, train stations, malls and so on. This would make it inevitable that your DNA ends up in these databases and you just have to accept it. Just like currently one kind of has to accept that thanks to facial recognition getting even better and cameras everywhere one can be tracked even without any electronic devices.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sametmax 9y ago
You don't have to accept it. You can protest. You can explain. You can vote. You can paie for service respecting you. You can educate. Maybe there are others things to do. There is always a choice. Most people saying there is none are just choosing one cost against another and say it's not a choice. Not blaming, i do the same. But we could avoid the disasters, living by thinking about the society ou simple everyday actions produce. However it's not only very hard to do, but most people are not interested in doing so. Or even to consider the question of society, or how to live ones live. Living on auto pilot is one of humanity's biggest problem. It helped us a lot when we were in survival mode, but now that our own construct is the only real danger to our existence, it really is an hindrance.
- comboy 9y ago
  If something is possible and you can't prevent it from happening then accepting it seems like the best option. You're arguing that you can prevent it from happening by regulation and education. I don't think it works if you apply a security mindset. Mallories don't care about rules. 3 letter agencies would be just one of examples. Yes, you can lower the probability of exploitation happening, but you have to keep in mind that it is possible. Kind of like leaving your car open - it's quite unlikely that somebody will go and pull the handle checking if it's closed, but it's possible and you're probably better off taking that into account. (now that I realized you are also parent of my original reply I'm a bit confused, I mean your two replies are kinda responding to each other)
  - rectang 9y ago
    See the history of credit reporting in the US for a counterpoint (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fair Credit Reporting Act, etc.). I expect that companies won't be able to help themselves and that they will eventually spasm in abuse of ever-more-accessible personal data so egregious and evil that people will take notice.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    If you can’t prevent it is a higher standard than most make it out to be. For most it’s “can’t prevent it without discomforting myself,” which is no standard at all.

by comboy 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sametmax 9y ago

You don't have to accept it. You can protest. You can explain. You can vote. You can paie for service respecting you. You can educate. Maybe there are others things to do. There is always a choice. Most people saying there is none are just choosing one cost against another and say it's not a choice. Not blaming, i do the same. But we could avoid the disasters, living by thinking about the society ou simple everyday actions produce. However it's not only very hard to do, but most people are not interested in doing so. Or even to consider the question of society, or how to live ones live. Living on auto pilot is one of humanity's biggest problem. It helped us a lot when we were in survival mode, but now that our own construct is the only real danger to our existence, it really is an hindrance.

comboy 9y ago
If something is possible and you can't prevent it from happening then accepting it seems like the best option. You're arguing that you can prevent it from happening by regulation and education. I don't think it works if you apply a security mindset. Mallories don't care about rules. 3 letter agencies would be just one of examples. Yes, you can lower the probability of exploitation happening, but you have to keep in mind that it is possible. Kind of like leaving your car open - it's quite unlikely that somebody will go and pull the handle checking if it's closed, but it's possible and you're probably better off taking that into account. (now that I realized you are also parent of my original reply I'm a bit confused, I mean your two replies are kinda responding to each other)
- rectang 9y ago
  See the history of credit reporting in the US for a counterpoint (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fair Credit Reporting Act, etc.). I expect that companies won't be able to help themselves and that they will eventually spasm in abuse of ever-more-accessible personal data so egregious and evil that people will take notice.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  If you can’t prevent it is a higher standard than most make it out to be. For most it’s “can’t prevent it without discomforting myself,” which is no standard at all.