5 ms·

Not sure if anyone's done this but I specifically put a fake name and email when I submitted my DNA test samples to maintain my privacy as much as possible. I

Not sure if anyone's done this but I specifically put a fake name and email when I submitted my DNA test samples to maintain my privacy as much as possible. I suppose they could track me based on my mailing address, which I didn't spoof, but it's better than nothing.

Leader2light 8y ago
Who do you think would track you and for what purpose?
endymi0n 8y ago
The scary thing about DNA and all of its future use is that all of your "privacy" measures are completely irrelevant, as the DNA of whoever is genetically related to you and known will easily lead back to you. And the probability of someone in your extended family being registered in a genetic database will closely approach one within the next decade.
- monocasa 8y ago
  Specifically that's how they found a serial rapist. The rapist hadn't submitted his DNA, but enough of his family had.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    I was reading somewhere on a security website that the topsy-turvy thing about that was that the impoverished, who tend to have entire families that are impoverished, are far less likely to ever be in these commercial DNA databases. So the people most likely to commit a crime, are the least likely to have DNA on file. (Of course he went on to point out that the poor are only more likely to commit property offenses, and property offenses statistically require less DNA evidence to solve than personal offenses. So it wouldn't matter much in practice.) It was an interesting take on the familial DNA issue with commercial DNA databases.
    - jolmg 8y ago
      > impoverished, who tend to have entire families that are impoverished, are far less likely to ever be in these commercial DNA databases. So the people most likely to commit a crime Well if we're going to make overgeneralizations like that, I could guess that the impoverished on average are more honorable than the rich, and less likely to commit crimes. In fact, that honor might even be the cause of their impoverishment. Crime pays and when the richest are so because they're willing to take money from under the table, outright steal it, or "earn" it from selling to addicts, what chance do the people that are trying to earn a living through honest means have? You know there are cemeteries for drug lords where the each tomb is a little mansion? There's also studies where free money was given away to anyone that wanted to take it. Most looked well off and said they wanted it for purse or whatever taking a ton of bills. Homeless on the other hand would just take a few bucks to buy a hotdog or other necesity, too ashamed to take more. There's also videos online of people trying to steal packages (the homeowner set up a camera and trap). All looked well off. They didn't look homeless or sketchy in any way. Some were even driving good cars. Let's not judge people on the amount of money they have.
      - lifeformed 8y ago
        I don't think they were really making a moral statement saying that crimes are committed by bad people, but that crimes are often committed by people in desperate situations and reduced opportunities, which I think is a reasonable, non-moralistic interpretation of the statistics.
        jolmg 8y ago
        > saying that crimes are committed by bad people That's different, and probably an objectively true statement unless law is written badly or by a thoroughly corrupt government. > but that crimes are often committed by people in desperate situations and reduced opportunities That's what I'm not sure I'd agree with. It's just as logical to think that people (not all) in desperate situations are so because they're restrictive in their actions, taking only opportunities that are in completely in line with their moral ideals. It's also logical to think that people (also not all) that are well off might be so because they took opportunities that might not have been of the highest morality (if not to say that they might have been outright illegal). > which I think is a reasonable, non-moralistic interpretation of the statistics. Can you cite those statistics? What I dislike about that type of thinking is that it leads to prejudice, so I'm not sure it's "non-moralistic" in any case. Anyway even if there is a location where most poor are bad and most rich are good, this seems to be very location and culture dependent. I don't think it's a claim that can be shown to be universally true.
casion 8y ago
I'm slightly confused by this comment. If it was important for you to not have traceable DNA, why wouldn't you just not submit it?
- ISL 8y ago
  Presumably OP was interested in the details of the DNA assay without being integrated accurately into a larger corpus of genetic data.
losvedir 8y ago
I did this for 23andMe. If I were truly privacy conscious I wouldn't have submitted at all, but this at least provides a small layer of defense in some minor threat models. What was funny, though, was when I did the search for relatives feature after, it listed a bunch of people with my fairly unique real last name, so oh well. Neat bit of evidence that the sequencing worked anyway.
nickysielicki 8y ago
This is like saying, "I looked up information on how to make bombs, but I put my browser in incognito mode. Yeah, the FBI can still get my browsing history from my ISP, but it's better than nothing." In both cases, it's not better than nothing. It's exactly nothing.

Leader2light 8y ago

Who do you think would track you and for what purpose?

endymi0n 8y ago

The scary thing about DNA and all of its future use is that all of your "privacy" measures are completely irrelevant, as the DNA of whoever is genetically related to you and known will easily lead back to you. And the probability of someone in your extended family being registered in a genetic database will closely approach one within the next decade.

monocasa 8y ago
Specifically that's how they found a serial rapist. The rapist hadn't submitted his DNA, but enough of his family had.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  I was reading somewhere on a security website that the topsy-turvy thing about that was that the impoverished, who tend to have entire families that are impoverished, are far less likely to ever be in these commercial DNA databases. So the people most likely to commit a crime, are the least likely to have DNA on file. (Of course he went on to point out that the poor are only more likely to commit property offenses, and property offenses statistically require less DNA evidence to solve than personal offenses. So it wouldn't matter much in practice.) It was an interesting take on the familial DNA issue with commercial DNA databases.
  - jolmg 8y ago
    > impoverished, who tend to have entire families that are impoverished, are far less likely to ever be in these commercial DNA databases. So the people most likely to commit a crime Well if we're going to make overgeneralizations like that, I could guess that the impoverished on average are more honorable than the rich, and less likely to commit crimes. In fact, that honor might even be the cause of their impoverishment. Crime pays and when the richest are so because they're willing to take money from under the table, outright steal it, or "earn" it from selling to addicts, what chance do the people that are trying to earn a living through honest means have? You know there are cemeteries for drug lords where the each tomb is a little mansion? There's also studies where free money was given away to anyone that wanted to take it. Most looked well off and said they wanted it for purse or whatever taking a ton of bills. Homeless on the other hand would just take a few bucks to buy a hotdog or other necesity, too ashamed to take more. There's also videos online of people trying to steal packages (the homeowner set up a camera and trap). All looked well off. They didn't look homeless or sketchy in any way. Some were even driving good cars. Let's not judge people on the amount of money they have.
    - lifeformed 8y ago
      I don't think they were really making a moral statement saying that crimes are committed by bad people, but that crimes are often committed by people in desperate situations and reduced opportunities, which I think is a reasonable, non-moralistic interpretation of the statistics.
      - jolmg 8y ago
        > saying that crimes are committed by bad people That's different, and probably an objectively true statement unless law is written badly or by a thoroughly corrupt government. > but that crimes are often committed by people in desperate situations and reduced opportunities That's what I'm not sure I'd agree with. It's just as logical to think that people (not all) in desperate situations are so because they're restrictive in their actions, taking only opportunities that are in completely in line with their moral ideals. It's also logical to think that people (also not all) that are well off might be so because they took opportunities that might not have been of the highest morality (if not to say that they might have been outright illegal). > which I think is a reasonable, non-moralistic interpretation of the statistics. Can you cite those statistics? What I dislike about that type of thinking is that it leads to prejudice, so I'm not sure it's "non-moralistic" in any case. Anyway even if there is a location where most poor are bad and most rich are good, this seems to be very location and culture dependent. I don't think it's a claim that can be shown to be universally true.

casion 8y ago

I'm slightly confused by this comment. If it was important for you to not have traceable DNA, why wouldn't you just not submit it?

ISL 8y ago
Presumably OP was interested in the details of the DNA assay without being integrated accurately into a larger corpus of genetic data.

losvedir 8y ago

I did this for 23andMe. If I were truly privacy conscious I wouldn't have submitted at all, but this at least provides a small layer of defense in some minor threat models. What was funny, though, was when I did the search for relatives feature after, it listed a bunch of people with my fairly unique real last name, so oh well. Neat bit of evidence that the sequencing worked anyway.

nickysielicki 8y ago

This is like saying, "I looked up information on how to make bombs, but I put my browser in incognito mode. Yeah, the FBI can still get my browsing history from my ISP, but it's better than nothing." In both cases, it's not better than nothing. It's exactly nothing.