3 ms·

Even if it is impractical now, is there any objective reason to believe it will remain so in the future?

Someone1234 8y ago
The sequenced DNA exists without any identifying information linking it to an individual. If they re-sequenced you and matched the two, they've gained nothing (since they had to re-sequence anyway), if they didn't re-sequence then they have no way of associating the two. So now, tomorrow, or into the far future the two piece of information cannot be re-associated because there's nothing to map them. The information about the link is lost. It is like asking "Can a lossy MP3 be restored to the lossless version if technology improves enough?" Nope. The information is simply gone. Same is true here, the associated link is just gone.
- Real_S 8y ago
  This is a common misconception, but you are incorrect. These data can be used to identify you, therefore they are not anonymous. If a name is removed from a file that contains zip-code, age and gender, that data is nevertheless sufficient to re-identify most people. Removing a name from a data-base does not necessarily anonymize that data-base. DNA can be used to uncover your last name and ethnicity, estimate your height, hair color, eye color and more, so anonymization is not as simple as removing a name.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    > DNA can be used to uncover your last name and ethnicity, estimate your height, hair color, eye color and more, so anonymization is not as simple as removing a name. It cannot be used to uncover your last name without sampling from several generational family members (and for them to be de-anonymised). Simply having a range of heights, hair color, eye color, is not enough to identify a unique individual. The mechanism you're claiming could exist seems to be based on already having de-anonymised sequenced DNA for most of the population. But if you had that you could infer someone's DNA profile without having to actually sequence (or more to the point, de-anonymised it) making the entire activity pointless. Essentially your entire argument is: If we already have your sequenced DNA (or could easily infer it) then de-anonymising you is easy. Which is both true but completely pointless.
- sorokod 8y ago
  I think there are degrees to the extent of tying / linking / re-associated (you use all these). If my DNA is present in some database and at a latter point in time I am sequenced again, all "metadata" (time, geography, etc...) associated with the circumstances of the first sequence getting into that DB immediately applies. In addition all genetic relatives (known or unknown to me) whose DNA is present in the DB may be affected by the circumstances of the second sequencing. The entire discussion is predicated on 23AndMe or Ancestry * not pivoting their business model and selling the unanonymized data to the highest bidder. * not being forced to reveal the unanonymized data to the authorities. * not revealing unanonymized data to hackers

The sequenced DNA exists without any identifying information linking it to an individual. If they re-sequenced you and matched the two, they've gained nothing (since they had to re-sequence anyway), if they didn't re-sequence then they have no way of associating the two. So now, tomorrow, or into the far future the two piece of information cannot be re-associated because there's nothing to map them. The information about the link is lost. It is like asking "Can a lossy MP3 be restored to the lossless version if technology improves enough?" Nope. The information is simply gone. Same is true here, the associated link is just gone.

Real_S 8y ago
This is a common misconception, but you are incorrect. These data can be used to identify you, therefore they are not anonymous. If a name is removed from a file that contains zip-code, age and gender, that data is nevertheless sufficient to re-identify most people. Removing a name from a data-base does not necessarily anonymize that data-base. DNA can be used to uncover your last name and ethnicity, estimate your height, hair color, eye color and more, so anonymization is not as simple as removing a name.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  > DNA can be used to uncover your last name and ethnicity, estimate your height, hair color, eye color and more, so anonymization is not as simple as removing a name. It cannot be used to uncover your last name without sampling from several generational family members (and for them to be de-anonymised). Simply having a range of heights, hair color, eye color, is not enough to identify a unique individual. The mechanism you're claiming could exist seems to be based on already having de-anonymised sequenced DNA for most of the population. But if you had that you could infer someone's DNA profile without having to actually sequence (or more to the point, de-anonymised it) making the entire activity pointless. Essentially your entire argument is: If we already have your sequenced DNA (or could easily infer it) then de-anonymising you is easy. Which is both true but completely pointless.
sorokod 8y ago
I think there are degrees to the extent of tying / linking / re-associated (you use all these). If my DNA is present in some database and at a latter point in time I am sequenced again, all "metadata" (time, geography, etc...) associated with the circumstances of the first sequence getting into that DB immediately applies. In addition all genetic relatives (known or unknown to me) whose DNA is present in the DB may be affected by the circumstances of the second sequencing. The entire discussion is predicated on 23AndMe or Ancestry * not pivoting their business model and selling the unanonymized data to the highest bidder. * not being forced to reveal the unanonymized data to the authorities. * not revealing unanonymized data to hackers