5 ms·
It is probably wrong to think of DNA as personal property. Its public use more closely resembles a commons which is shared by many. We don't give individuals
by jhayward 8y ago
It is probably wrong to think of DNA as personal property. Its public use more closely resembles a commons which is shared by many. We don't give individuals the right to pollute air, for instance, simply because they own property that has air on it.
Likewise we should develop principles for information which when combined with other information can be used to transgress against 3rd parties' enjoyment of their own privacy.
- jackhack 8y ago>It is probably wrong to think of DNA as personal property. Are you kidding? Is there anything else more personal than THE VERY THING THAT DEFINES WHAT YOU ARE AS A PHYSICAL BEING to a level of detail that science may never fully understand it? Other than one's own thoughts, I, personally, cannot think of something more personal. Conflating this with air pollution is simply nonsensical.
- interestica 8y agoIs there anything quite as shared as DNA? You share 99.xxx percent with everyone else. You share a significant portion with other species. Other living things.
- interestica 8y agoAlso, we can't conflate DNA and one's specific DNA sequence. It's like the majority of the code is GPL.
- pvaldes 8y ago> Is there anything quite as shared as DNA? Music for example. The same poool of musical notes in 100% of compositions. Just arranged in different ways, like DNA
- ekianjo 8y agoCompletely wrong analogy. Most genes sequences are completely identical between humans. The differences in genes for specific traits are marginal, percentage wise.
- vonseel 8y agoHmm, I would have guessed differently but I was also an undergrad biology dropout :/ wasn’t concrete enough for me. FWIW I can see where he was coming from.
- pvaldes 8y agoAnd everybody uses a microphone, guitar, bass, keyboard and some kind of cowbell. trebble clef, bass clef, verse, hooks, a chorus, tempo, allegro, presto, bits per minute... completely identical in many songs.
- jhayward 8y agoI think you're missing an important way of looking at DNA. It is clear that most people view the details in their DNA as being specific, private information about themselves and want to have control of what can be done with it. DNA is also shared, however. A relative can currently choose to reveal private information in their DNA that also reveals information that you consider private in your DNA. This is the way in which DNA has a shared or commons aspect. My point is that the shared nature of DNA means we have to look outside of individual actions to preserve the privacy rights that many seem to want preserved. In other words, I shouldn't be able to use my DNA to reveal private information about anyone else.
- kenjackson 8y agoGiven that you leave DNA all over the place, we should really ask if DNA is indeed actually private. In many regards it seems less private than your facial features as I don't routinely leave my facial features on restaurant silverware.
- acct1771 8y agoDNA dies in a day. That Dropcam stream Google flagged your facial fingerprint on...not so much.
- drilldrive 8y agoThis exact scenario is what I find to be a call to a fullness of individualism to be quite inappropriate. We are not just ourselves, but of our parents and grandparents, and of our children. And to forget our lineage is to forget ourselves, in part at least.
- shakna 8y ago> Itis probably wrong to think of DNA as personal property. DNA cannot be thought of any other way whilst we continue to use it for personal identification. We don't have another mechanism for protecting something uniquely identifying from tyranny. Perhaps we should, especially as in this case others privacy may be co-dependent on myself, as you noted.
- maxerickson 8y agoIn the US we absolutely don't treat DNA as personal property. For instance, there's no need to get a warrant to follow you around and pick up something that you discard and then examine that object for DNA.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago> We don't give individuals the right to pollute air, for instance, simply because they own property that has air on it Lol, what planet do you live on? Sounds dope. The battles to price externalities into markets here on Earth are all hard fought. By default if you can’t see it you don’t pay for it. Anything beyond that needs to be pounded out in the political ring.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]