32 ms·

Reasons not to reveal your DNA

244 points by afshinmeh 8y ago

mises 8y ago
The genie is out of the bottle; wait ten years and DNA will be mandatory to include in passports, drivers licenses, etc. Same thing with facial recognition. I still hate fingerprinting. None of these biometrics are perfect, and my core objection to all is that they make every one a suspect. Suddenly, it's possible that any person in the nation could be "matched" and, simply by the say-so of the all-powerful computer, determined guilty. My math professor used to make fun of students for relying too much on calculators. He would tell a story of a student who received an answer of several million miles from his calculator on a problem concerning distance between two cities in America. Because it came from his calculator, he took it as gospel, even though it was obviously wrong. There is no reason to expect better of our law enforcement or of our governments. See the cases of incorrect DNA testing getting people locked away for years. I hope there is some way to eradicate biometric technology. I do not see a huge benefit, as it can be forged. And if the information is ever leaked, it cannot be changed. Fingerprint got uploaded to the internet? Nothing to be done. Is any American politician actually advocating to stop this, possibly outside of the Libertarian Party (which I generally like, but will sadly never be elected, especially if they keep putting up Gary Johnson)? This might just be enough to convince me to support a candidate of one of the main parties.
- dcbadacd 8y ago
  There's no way to eradicate biometric tech, there's no way law enforcement will stop using biometrics, the only thing we can ask for it more transperency how the biometric data is used, processed and stored. No hidden fingerprinting, no unknown-quality proprietary software and hardware, extra-strict quality and integrity controls. The genie is out of the bottle and we can only hope not to wish for the genie not to maliciously comply with our wishes.
  - mises 8y ago
    I don't buy any "transparency". Any time I hear that word, I jump to the idea that it is being used to mask something by releasing most things. I don't really care how it's used, processed, stored, etc.; I care that it is. The feds want a biometric database of every American that can be used to track, monitor, and regulate movement. We were supposed to live in a nation where law enforcement didn't watch us unless we were a suspect in a crime. This stuff makes everyone a suspect. The idea of "transparency" only works if we have some way to verify it (which we don't) and if we can punish politicians or bureaucrats for abuses. We can barely fire bureaucrats as-is, how will we do it in the future? And politicians never get punished for mishandling a few cases.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  The problem with third-parties in the US is that they all have platforms that include issues other than reform of voting methods in the US, such that the political duopoly is broken. And no candidate from the duopoly will take it up as an issue, because it doesn't get them more votes, and may actually lose some out of police employee unions. So you're not going to tackle this with voting. Hire a lobbyist yourself, or donate to a PAC or advocacy org that is dedicated to privacy issues.
  - mises 8y ago
    > Hire a lobbyist yourself, or donate to a PAC or advocacy org that is dedicated to privacy issues. Too broke. Also, not a lot of advocacy organizations focus solely on privacy issues; most feel the need to mix in others.
trabant00 8y ago
>4. Racists are weaponizing the results. White nationalists have flocked to commercial DNA companies to vie for the highest race-purity points on extremist websites. Hitler drank water. Stay away from it. Also, from the original quoted guardian article: "like many things in life, direct-to-consumer genetic testing is tailored for white people". > 10. A pair of socks is a better gift. The smartest question I can ask about this: what the fuck is this shit?
- devmunchies 8y ago
  The word "weaponized" made me roll my eyes. Some rascists with little influence outside their circle on a corner of the internet is hardly a weapon. Now what the govt (using DNA for prosecution) or big business is doing with the DNA does seem dangerous.
sorokod 8y ago
This is security 101 - reduce the attack surface.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
robhunter 8y ago
"8. Anonymous sperm and egg donors could become a thing of the past." As someone conceived with donor gametes who used Ancestry/23andme to find and build a relationship with my biological father - this is a WONDERFUL thing. Depriving people of their genetic history is a terrible byproduct of the multi-billion-dollar fertility industry, and I personally know hundreds of people that have been terribly hurt by the pain caused by anonymous donations. Only thing to correct - anonymous donations very much now ARE a thing of the past, not "could be." Any fertility clinic promising anonymity is knowingly lying to prospective donors and/or recipient parents.
- kodt 8y ago
  Aren't there concerns of the state going after doners to pay child support in cases where the legal guardians have some hardship/separate etc? Or should that just be "in the fine print" when you donate?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - tylersmith 8y ago
    The laws should be fixed to not allow those kinds of ridiculous cases.
    - creeble 8y ago
      Yes they should, and others too (see my GP response above). Anonymity, such as it was, helped prevent risk. Now we need a law to limit the liability of a donor. Are there already such laws?
      - robhunter 8y ago
        Anonymity created many, many risks. There are documented cases of genetic half-siblings having a sexual relationship because they did not know they were donor conceived. There are documented cases of suicides from adults finding out they were conceived from anonymous sperm donation and that "their Dad was not their Dad." 90% of donor conceived adults do not know they are donor conceived - and so all have provided incorrect medical history information to their doctors. Does that not seem like a risk?
Myrmornis 8y ago
1. The results may not be accurate 23andMe and ancestry.com are accurately sequencing DNA and providing ancestry interpretations in line with peer-reviewed science. 2. Heritage tests are less precise if you don’t have European roots. Human ancestry is extremely well-studied. These studies have included large numbers of genomes from many different ancestry groups. Certainly, the common ancestry groups among the likely readers of this article are well-represented and studied. 3. Your DNA says nothing about your culture. From a statistical point of view, your DNA contains information about the ethnic groups to which your ancestors belonged. That in turn contains information about the culture in which your ancestors, and you, find themselves. If the author means "says nothing" in a sense other than "statistical information" then it would be interesting to learn what this sense is.
- Gatsky 8y ago
  23andMe don't sequence DNA. They use extremely low resolution SNP chips. Such SNP chips are currently used in exactly zero real world (human) medical applications. This is because they are useless as a test with anything near acceptable diagnostic performance. Anyway, the point of the article is that the interpretation of the results may not be accurate, and that is a fairly generous way to put it.
  - searine 8y ago
    > Such SNP chips are currently used in exactly zero real world (human) medical applications. That's not true at all. There have been dozens of publications using that data and they have been instrumental in progressing our knowledge of genetic associations. I have personally used 23andMe's array based data and resulting associations to investigate disease. It is priceless and hugely beneficial.
    - Gatsky 8y ago
      There is no medical test that uses these chips. You describe research into genetic associations - that is an entirely different matter. Also, whether the type of information obtained from a 23andMe style test has any material impact on health is very much unproven, as outlined in their own terms of service, and the fact they were poleaxed by the FDA for overselling the utility of the test.
logram 8y ago
The danger about making these lists is that you may end up thinking that you have to get a high number of reasons to make your claim seem valid. I would not be surprised if the author started stating five to ten reasons and then thought that 23 was a good number for the reference, therefore proceeding to fill up the article with whatever nonsense. That's the only process I can think of that nets you "they sell your DNA to other companies", "scientists can make gifs with your DNA" and "companies buy ads" to be arguments in the same hierarchical level. Some of them are pretty serious consequences of using their services: some of them involving the company's practices, and others involving the dangers of developing this industry. Both should be considered in separate to get a clearer picture of the issue. This article is treating it as BuzzFeed treats a new game of thrones episode, therefore depriving it of any legitimacy. I'd like to see more elaborated on three points particularly: the privacy implications of having your DNA shared, the accuracy and precision of the purported results and the possible dangers of applications of this industry.
- PunchTornado 8y ago
  exactly my thought. the author was either removing good reasons or making up bullshit reasons to arrive to the magic number of 23. just why?
  - halfdan 8y ago
    Presumably because we have 23 chromosomes.
    - PunchTornado 8y ago
      23 pairs, we have 46. the author owes us another 23 reasons.
      - tialaramex 8y ago
        But presumably they'd be very similar to the existing 23 reasons except with very minor variations.
  - 8y ago
inciampati 8y ago
Unfortunately, you would have to live in a plastic bubble to make that possible. You probably shed many petabases of your DNA every day. Your DNA is no more private than your face. The best you can do of you don't want to reveal it is to never leave the house. Also, don't have family, relatives, or members of the same species to reveal your secret...
- tylersmith 8y ago
  Yeah trying to keep DNA private is a losing cause. You're constantly leaving your DNA laying around. How long until the average phone is capable of scanning for DNA on any random surface? I'd bet not as long as we'd like. And the fact that you share so much of it with your family just compounds the problem with trying to keep DNA a secret. I'd like my DNA to remain private but it's less realistic than keeping even your fingerprints private.
  - mosdave 8y ago
    > How long until the average phone is capable of scanning for DNA on any random surface? I'd bet not as long as we'd like. PCR in a phone? How novel. This sort of nonsense belongs over at /r/futurology.
    - tylersmith 8y ago
      Why is that? I must have missed that rule.
- Gatsky 8y ago
  This is unnecessarily paranoid. It would take a concerted effort to obtain a good quality and sufficiently pure DNA sample from a person's ambient DNA. In the mythical scenario that someone wanted to get your whole genome sequence without you realising, they would need to collect many ambient samples (the gum you just threw in the bin, swabs of handles and keypads that you just touched, hair samples) and perform whole genome sequencing, which would cost multiple thousands of dollars. 23andMe's crappy SNP test is useless on a sample that could be contaminated with other human DNA.
inciampati 8y ago
> Genes can be hacked. Scientists have discovered how to store data and even animated GIFs in DNA, and even believe malware could be placed in DNA to compromise the security of computers holding databases. Still trust them? This is really hyperbolic. Who is behind the institution publishing this and what are their motives? Edit: Oh... Mozilla????
- peteradio 8y ago
  What about this is hyperbolic? We live currently in the future and 10 years from now is the far future.
  - astrea 8y ago
    I wouldn't say hyperbolic as much as irrelevant. What does the ability to hack DNA have to do with having my complete genome? So you'll have a Petri dish full of cells with my DNA + malware? Then what? (I realize 100% that I'm ignorant here and am genuinely interested in the answer).
    - peteradio 8y ago
      > Then what? I guess my point is that shit is happening fast, already unimaginable stuff is happening (DNA + malware in petri dish WTF would that have even meant 2 decades ago?) So if there are two miracle steps needed to make something insane happen and one has already occurred then shouldn't we be ready for some insanity?
jakereps 8y ago
> Genes can be hacked. Scientists have discovered how to store data and even animated GIFs in DNA, and even believe malware could be placed in DNA to compromise the security of computers holding databases. Still trust them? Trust who? This bullet makes no sense to me. The entire list seems to boil down to "big company bad, wear tinfoil hat." There are certainly valid reasons one would not want to have their DNA sequenced by a public for-profit company, but this list is reaching. > A pair of socks is a better gift. I mean, really?
- stuff4ben 8y ago
  Yes, a pair of socks is a better gift than a family member jeopardizing my anonymity. I got a great set from WeaveWorks at last years Kubecon in Seattle!
  - jakereps 8y ago
    That may be absolutely true, but how does that relate to the title of "Reasons not to reveal your DNA." > Don't reveal your DNA, because socks are a better gift. The two are completely unrelated, IMO.
    - Real_S 8y ago
      I believe this was the author's intent: Socks are seen by most as a terrible gift. Hence [terrible gift] makes a better gift than a DNA test.
- tlynchpin 8y ago
  Several commenters are attaching to this sock bit. Story time, my mother gave my minor daughter a DNA test kit as a present. I was horrified and my mother was bewildered by my very visceral and unfiltered "aw hell naw". Socks would have been a better gift. In fact my daughter also got some socks and they are super cute, she enjoys them frequently. Socks!
  - unkulunkulu 8y ago
dstroot 8y ago
I paid 23&me to test my DNA. I have received the results. Now I have no idea how that information is being re-used or sold. I plan to submit a delete request of my data when CA’s CCPA law goes into effect.
- klmr 8y ago
  > Now I have no idea how that information is being re-used or sold. You were explicitly asked for permission (in clear, non-caged language) when you accessed your data. If you declined, your data isn’t being resold. Other reuse is restricted to the extent that you’re answering voluntary 23andme questionnaires, and used in a non personally identifiable way (i.e. in summary statistics).
sbassi 8y ago
I prefer to share. Here is mine. https://github.com/sbassi/MiGenomaSbassi https://github.com/sbassi/MiGenomaSbassi
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ve55 8y ago
While this list isn't the best and some reasons are a bit silly, I'm happy to see more content that helps inform regular users about the downsides of these practices. Paying to give a company your DNA is absurd. As I stated on this two weeks ago: I will be waiting until I can analyze my DNA myself, without handing it over to a company that is going to do whatever it wants to with it. We are not yet able to fully appreciate how valuable DNA is, and yet everyone seems delighted to pay companies to take it from them. Perhaps they will be less delighted when they are convicted of a crime based off of a false positive, have their DNA shared with Facebook to Improve Their User Experience ™, or have their DNA made public after yet another security breach where it is left on an unsecured server. Remember that your DNA is very valuable, literally. Those who have noticed recent progress in genomics should realize how valuable it would be to a competent advertising company, allowing them to profile and predict users with significantly higher personal accuracy, even if all they are doing is performing basic GWASs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study).
- Real_S 8y ago
  Genetic information is probably the most valuable information about you. Your fears are well founded, but the threat matrix is growing and the sci-fi-like threats around genetic data that we will face in 10, 20, 30 years can only be imagined. For that reason, my company seeks to apply cryptography to DNA molecules. This helps avoid insider threats and hardware backdoors. We hope that our tech will be used by multiple service providers to allow you to have complete control over your genetic data security. More info at geneinfosec.com
- breck 8y ago
  This is analogous to the 1800s when people disagreed over whether one should let a camera take your photo. It’s an interesting debate. However, if sequencing prices and mobility (see oxford nanopore) continue to advance at current rates, in 30 years your DNA could be sequenced thousands+ of times a day, everywhere you go in public, akin to how you are photographed now with security cameras, in the background of selfies, et cetera. In that sense because of abundance there’s 0 value in our DNA. From an engineering standpoint it’s going to happen and there’s nothing you can do about it.
SilasX 8y ago
Oh, that's cute, thinking you have a choice. As DNA tests get cheaper and more powerful, a rando could get it just from hair or skin cells you leave behind. Similar issue for giving your full legal name to a stranger, which will be hard to protect has facial recognition gets better.
- logifail 8y ago
  > Similar issue for giving your full legal name to a stranger, which will be hard to protect has facial recognition gets better Not uploading your entire life including photos tagged with your real name to social media helps quite significantly with this.
neokantian 8y ago
They do not mention the real reason why governments are scared to death by systematic DNA testing: it trivially reveals paternity fraud. In the current climate of rampant promiscuity and related deception, it could very well affect the amount of money men provide, while inflating the already ballooning welfare budget. It is clearly a gender issue.
- negus 8y ago
  Cool conspiracy theory, bro.
- devmunchies 8y ago
  that was hinted at in point 7, no? > You could become emotionally scarred. You may discover things you weren’t prepared to find out.
formalsystem 8y ago
I used Ancestry in the past but didn't really get much info, basically I'm Mediterranean which I know I am since that's where I grew up and links to some random 6th degree cousins which TBH could be anyone given that I'm from a country with a total population of ~4M. I ended up downloading my data and canceling my Ancestry service since I wasn't comfortable with how that data could potentially be used in the future (one term of services change from sketchy stuff happening). Question to people here, what can I do with this data I've downloaded? Data was surprisingly small, just 5MB - with 5 rows: rsid, chromosome, position, allele 1, allele 2. Is there any OSS software I can run on my machine to learn something useful about myself?
- howboutthis 8y ago
  https://www.promethease.com/ https://www.promethease.com/
- drocer88 8y ago
  Go here : https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/docs/file-downloads https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/docs/file-downloads Agree to the EuroBS cookie thing then Download the tsv file and load into a spreadsheet. Then search for your "rs*" ids. (rsid is the canonical SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism, identification number ) Example "rs id" looks like rs2179129. Duckduck the rs id if you want more info. If you know a programming language, you can automate processing of the file you got from dna info provider and the the gwas catalog file from NHGRI.
abstractbarista 8y ago
I actually want to submit some other person's DNA to them, so it can be in the DB as mine. Would they notice this, assuming I find another <same race, same sex> person?
- Real_S 8y ago
  Genetic data can be used to identify you, so although this trick may provide some obfuscation, ultimately it would place your identifiable information in the data base. And if a close family member is in that data base, you would be identified immediately.
  - ignoranceprior 8y ago
    I think you misunderstand. GP's idea was not to submit their own DNA under someone else's name, but rather to submit someone else's DNA under their own name (as a decoy).
Jerry2 8y ago
About a year ago I saw a link here on HN from an Intel(?) guy in which he listed ways that DNA info can be abused. I tried to find the talk but have been unable to. Does anyone remember the talk and has a link?
- Real_S 8y ago
  Excellent talk! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY
  - Jerry2 8y ago
    That's the one! Thank so much Real_S! Everyone needs to watch this before you spit into that sample bottle and send it away to some giant corporation.
oarabbus_ 8y ago
Ancestry is pretty crap and a waste of money if you aren't of European descent.
EnFinlay 8y ago
"Come on we need 23 reasons because of 23 chromosomes! I don't care how stupid the list is, just hit that number"
djsumdog 8y ago
I thought these companies didn't actually sequence your DNA. Smarter Every Day did a video where they showed how your DNA samples are checked for several know markers to see if they attach. Unless you specifically allow it, the samples are then destroyed. I still wouldn't get one of these tests, mostly due to accuracy issues and because I really just don't care, but I feel like some of this article is fear mongering.
austincheney 8y ago
If pharmaceutical companies want access to my DNA then fine... they can pay me for that access. I will not give it away for free and certainly not let them charge me money for it.
BuffaloBagel 8y ago
An unknown half-brother found me after an Ancestry.com DNA test. It's been a weird but very fulfilling experience for me. I realize it's not that way for everyone.
chriscaruso 8y ago
The list was not compelling at all.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
irrational 8y ago
>You will jeopardize the anonymity of family members Too late for me. I have 7 siblings and 4 half siblings. I have 10 aunts and uncles who are blood relations (I'm not including their spouses) and about 70 first cousins. Plus my parents and grand parents. To the best of my knowledge, almost all of them have had their DNA work done by ancestry and 23andme. The family has a lot of doctors (some of whom are boarded in genetic medicine) that think everyone (not just in the family, but literally everyone) should get their DNA tested to help answer questions about family history, migrations, diseases, etc. I'm considered odd because I don't want to get mine done, though it's probably pointless since so many people that share my DNA have already done it.
- astura 8y ago
  You have 70 (seventy) first cousins from only 10 aunts and uncles? That seems unusual because I have 15 blood aunts and uncles yet slightly less than 30 first cousins.
  - irrational 8y ago
    Well, 20 aunts and uncles (I was only including the ones I share DNA with). But yeah, most had 7+ children. My paternal grandmother, who is still living, has 100+ great-grandchildren and counting (the most recent great-grandchild was born just 2 weeks ago and quite a few other grandchildren are expecting). The leading edge of the great-grandchildren are just now reaching their early 20s and one of them has a great-great-grandchild on the way.
    - mafuy 8y ago
      I don't know your background, but in rural Vietnam (my partner's origin), that situation would not be unusual, too.
- zmmmmm 8y ago
  This is unfortunately the same boat everyone is in. If any 2nd or even 3rd degree relative has their DNA information banked with any of these services then you are effectively identifiable. Police or anybody who can get a sample of your DNA left behind anywhere will be able to immediately identify your family, then rapidly rule out most of the other family members through orthogonal information and in most cases you will be the only candidate remaining. So the real question is, if you already lost your anonymity, is there anything left to lose by buying in? You might as well get the benefits if you are having your privacy destroyed anyway.
golemiprague 8y ago
Privacy issues are well known, there is nothing new here. Discovering family ties and stuff like that, many people see it as positive and that's why they do the test in the first place. White supremacist using it is just a childish argument, what do I care? it is their issue. Inaccurate databases only for Europeans? it fixes itself slowly as more people use it. This is the type of grievances against "white people" that honestly become boring if not worst, hostile and divisive. The main problem I see in youtube videos is that people are ignorant and don't understand the results, questions like what is Iberian or black people surprised that they have some white blood, Italians surprised that they have some greek blood etc. But actually it is a good thing because usually those people learn something or two about geography and genetics from comments or just reading themselves.
NeoBasilisk 8y ago
I understand the sentiment of caution here, but some of those reasons listed were really dumb.

244 points by afshinmeh 8y ago

The genie is out of the bottle; wait ten years and DNA will be mandatory to include in passports, drivers licenses, etc. Same thing with facial recognition. I still hate fingerprinting. None of these biometrics are perfect, and my core objection to all is that they make every one a suspect. Suddenly, it's possible that any person in the nation could be "matched" and, simply by the say-so of the all-powerful computer, determined guilty. My math professor used to make fun of students for relying too much on calculators. He would tell a story of a student who received an answer of several million miles from his calculator on a problem concerning distance between two cities in America. Because it came from his calculator, he took it as gospel, even though it was obviously wrong. There is no reason to expect better of our law enforcement or of our governments. See the cases of incorrect DNA testing getting people locked away for years. I hope there is some way to eradicate biometric technology. I do not see a huge benefit, as it can be forged. And if the information is ever leaked, it cannot be changed. Fingerprint got uploaded to the internet? Nothing to be done. Is any American politician actually advocating to stop this, possibly outside of the Libertarian Party (which I generally like, but will sadly never be elected, especially if they keep putting up Gary Johnson)? This might just be enough to convince me to support a candidate of one of the main parties.

dcbadacd 8y ago
There's no way to eradicate biometric tech, there's no way law enforcement will stop using biometrics, the only thing we can ask for it more transperency how the biometric data is used, processed and stored. No hidden fingerprinting, no unknown-quality proprietary software and hardware, extra-strict quality and integrity controls. The genie is out of the bottle and we can only hope not to wish for the genie not to maliciously comply with our wishes.
- mises 8y ago
  I don't buy any "transparency". Any time I hear that word, I jump to the idea that it is being used to mask something by releasing most things. I don't really care how it's used, processed, stored, etc.; I care that it is. The feds want a biometric database of every American that can be used to track, monitor, and regulate movement. We were supposed to live in a nation where law enforcement didn't watch us unless we were a suspect in a crime. This stuff makes everyone a suspect. The idea of "transparency" only works if we have some way to verify it (which we don't) and if we can punish politicians or bureaucrats for abuses. We can barely fire bureaucrats as-is, how will we do it in the future? And politicians never get punished for mishandling a few cases.
logfromblammo 8y ago
The problem with third-parties in the US is that they all have platforms that include issues other than reform of voting methods in the US, such that the political duopoly is broken. And no candidate from the duopoly will take it up as an issue, because it doesn't get them more votes, and may actually lose some out of police employee unions. So you're not going to tackle this with voting. Hire a lobbyist yourself, or donate to a PAC or advocacy org that is dedicated to privacy issues.
- mises 8y ago
  > Hire a lobbyist yourself, or donate to a PAC or advocacy org that is dedicated to privacy issues. Too broke. Also, not a lot of advocacy organizations focus solely on privacy issues; most feel the need to mix in others.

trabant00 8y ago

>4. Racists are weaponizing the results. White nationalists have flocked to commercial DNA companies to vie for the highest race-purity points on extremist websites. Hitler drank water. Stay away from it. Also, from the original quoted guardian article: "like many things in life, direct-to-consumer genetic testing is tailored for white people". > 10. A pair of socks is a better gift. The smartest question I can ask about this: what the fuck is this shit?

devmunchies 8y ago
The word "weaponized" made me roll my eyes. Some rascists with little influence outside their circle on a corner of the internet is hardly a weapon. Now what the govt (using DNA for prosecution) or big business is doing with the DNA does seem dangerous.

sorokod 8y ago

This is security 101 - reduce the attack surface.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

robhunter 8y ago

"8. Anonymous sperm and egg donors could become a thing of the past." As someone conceived with donor gametes who used Ancestry/23andme to find and build a relationship with my biological father - this is a WONDERFUL thing. Depriving people of their genetic history is a terrible byproduct of the multi-billion-dollar fertility industry, and I personally know hundreds of people that have been terribly hurt by the pain caused by anonymous donations. Only thing to correct - anonymous donations very much now ARE a thing of the past, not "could be." Any fertility clinic promising anonymity is knowingly lying to prospective donors and/or recipient parents.

kodt 8y ago
Aren't there concerns of the state going after doners to pay child support in cases where the legal guardians have some hardship/separate etc? Or should that just be "in the fine print" when you donate?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tylersmith 8y ago
  The laws should be fixed to not allow those kinds of ridiculous cases.
  - creeble 8y ago
    Yes they should, and others too (see my GP response above). Anonymity, such as it was, helped prevent risk. Now we need a law to limit the liability of a donor. Are there already such laws?
    - robhunter 8y ago
      Anonymity created many, many risks. There are documented cases of genetic half-siblings having a sexual relationship because they did not know they were donor conceived. There are documented cases of suicides from adults finding out they were conceived from anonymous sperm donation and that "their Dad was not their Dad." 90% of donor conceived adults do not know they are donor conceived - and so all have provided incorrect medical history information to their doctors. Does that not seem like a risk?

Myrmornis 8y ago

1. The results may not be accurate 23andMe and ancestry.com are accurately sequencing DNA and providing ancestry interpretations in line with peer-reviewed science. 2. Heritage tests are less precise if you don’t have European roots. Human ancestry is extremely well-studied. These studies have included large numbers of genomes from many different ancestry groups. Certainly, the common ancestry groups among the likely readers of this article are well-represented and studied. 3. Your DNA says nothing about your culture. From a statistical point of view, your DNA contains information about the ethnic groups to which your ancestors belonged. That in turn contains information about the culture in which your ancestors, and you, find themselves. If the author means "says nothing" in a sense other than "statistical information" then it would be interesting to learn what this sense is.

Gatsky 8y ago
23andMe don't sequence DNA. They use extremely low resolution SNP chips. Such SNP chips are currently used in exactly zero real world (human) medical applications. This is because they are useless as a test with anything near acceptable diagnostic performance. Anyway, the point of the article is that the interpretation of the results may not be accurate, and that is a fairly generous way to put it.
- searine 8y ago
  > Such SNP chips are currently used in exactly zero real world (human) medical applications. That's not true at all. There have been dozens of publications using that data and they have been instrumental in progressing our knowledge of genetic associations. I have personally used 23andMe's array based data and resulting associations to investigate disease. It is priceless and hugely beneficial.
  - Gatsky 8y ago
    There is no medical test that uses these chips. You describe research into genetic associations - that is an entirely different matter. Also, whether the type of information obtained from a 23andMe style test has any material impact on health is very much unproven, as outlined in their own terms of service, and the fact they were poleaxed by the FDA for overselling the utility of the test.

logram 8y ago

The danger about making these lists is that you may end up thinking that you have to get a high number of reasons to make your claim seem valid. I would not be surprised if the author started stating five to ten reasons and then thought that 23 was a good number for the reference, therefore proceeding to fill up the article with whatever nonsense. That's the only process I can think of that nets you "they sell your DNA to other companies", "scientists can make gifs with your DNA" and "companies buy ads" to be arguments in the same hierarchical level. Some of them are pretty serious consequences of using their services: some of them involving the company's practices, and others involving the dangers of developing this industry. Both should be considered in separate to get a clearer picture of the issue. This article is treating it as BuzzFeed treats a new game of thrones episode, therefore depriving it of any legitimacy. I'd like to see more elaborated on three points particularly: the privacy implications of having your DNA shared, the accuracy and precision of the purported results and the possible dangers of applications of this industry.

PunchTornado 8y ago
exactly my thought. the author was either removing good reasons or making up bullshit reasons to arrive to the magic number of 23. just why?
- halfdan 8y ago
  Presumably because we have 23 chromosomes.
  - PunchTornado 8y ago
    23 pairs, we have 46. the author owes us another 23 reasons.
    - tialaramex 8y ago
      But presumably they'd be very similar to the existing 23 reasons except with very minor variations.
- 8y ago

inciampati 8y ago

Unfortunately, you would have to live in a plastic bubble to make that possible. You probably shed many petabases of your DNA every day. Your DNA is no more private than your face. The best you can do of you don't want to reveal it is to never leave the house. Also, don't have family, relatives, or members of the same species to reveal your secret...

tylersmith 8y ago
Yeah trying to keep DNA private is a losing cause. You're constantly leaving your DNA laying around. How long until the average phone is capable of scanning for DNA on any random surface? I'd bet not as long as we'd like. And the fact that you share so much of it with your family just compounds the problem with trying to keep DNA a secret. I'd like my DNA to remain private but it's less realistic than keeping even your fingerprints private.
- mosdave 8y ago
  > How long until the average phone is capable of scanning for DNA on any random surface? I'd bet not as long as we'd like. PCR in a phone? How novel. This sort of nonsense belongs over at /r/futurology.
  - tylersmith 8y ago
    Why is that? I must have missed that rule.
Gatsky 8y ago
This is unnecessarily paranoid. It would take a concerted effort to obtain a good quality and sufficiently pure DNA sample from a person's ambient DNA. In the mythical scenario that someone wanted to get your whole genome sequence without you realising, they would need to collect many ambient samples (the gum you just threw in the bin, swabs of handles and keypads that you just touched, hair samples) and perform whole genome sequencing, which would cost multiple thousands of dollars. 23andMe's crappy SNP test is useless on a sample that could be contaminated with other human DNA.

inciampati 8y ago

> Genes can be hacked. Scientists have discovered how to store data and even animated GIFs in DNA, and even believe malware could be placed in DNA to compromise the security of computers holding databases. Still trust them? This is really hyperbolic. Who is behind the institution publishing this and what are their motives? Edit: Oh... Mozilla????

peteradio 8y ago
What about this is hyperbolic? We live currently in the future and 10 years from now is the far future.
- astrea 8y ago
  I wouldn't say hyperbolic as much as irrelevant. What does the ability to hack DNA have to do with having my complete genome? So you'll have a Petri dish full of cells with my DNA + malware? Then what? (I realize 100% that I'm ignorant here and am genuinely interested in the answer).
  - peteradio 8y ago
    > Then what? I guess my point is that shit is happening fast, already unimaginable stuff is happening (DNA + malware in petri dish WTF would that have even meant 2 decades ago?) So if there are two miracle steps needed to make something insane happen and one has already occurred then shouldn't we be ready for some insanity?

jakereps 8y ago

> Genes can be hacked. Scientists have discovered how to store data and even animated GIFs in DNA, and even believe malware could be placed in DNA to compromise the security of computers holding databases. Still trust them? Trust who? This bullet makes no sense to me. The entire list seems to boil down to "big company bad, wear tinfoil hat." There are certainly valid reasons one would not want to have their DNA sequenced by a public for-profit company, but this list is reaching. > A pair of socks is a better gift. I mean, really?

stuff4ben 8y ago
Yes, a pair of socks is a better gift than a family member jeopardizing my anonymity. I got a great set from WeaveWorks at last years Kubecon in Seattle!
- jakereps 8y ago
  That may be absolutely true, but how does that relate to the title of "Reasons not to reveal your DNA." > Don't reveal your DNA, because socks are a better gift. The two are completely unrelated, IMO.
  - Real_S 8y ago
    I believe this was the author's intent: Socks are seen by most as a terrible gift. Hence [terrible gift] makes a better gift than a DNA test.
tlynchpin 8y ago
Several commenters are attaching to this sock bit. Story time, my mother gave my minor daughter a DNA test kit as a present. I was horrified and my mother was bewildered by my very visceral and unfiltered "aw hell naw". Socks would have been a better gift. In fact my daughter also got some socks and they are super cute, she enjoys them frequently. Socks!
- unkulunkulu 8y ago

dstroot 8y ago

I paid 23&me to test my DNA. I have received the results. Now I have no idea how that information is being re-used or sold. I plan to submit a delete request of my data when CA’s CCPA law goes into effect.

klmr 8y ago
> Now I have no idea how that information is being re-used or sold. You were explicitly asked for permission (in clear, non-caged language) when you accessed your data. If you declined, your data isn’t being resold. Other reuse is restricted to the extent that you’re answering voluntary 23andme questionnaires, and used in a non personally identifiable way (i.e. in summary statistics).

sbassi 8y ago

I prefer to share. Here is mine. https://github.com/sbassi/MiGenomaSbassi https://github.com/sbassi/MiGenomaSbassi

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ve55 8y ago

While this list isn't the best and some reasons are a bit silly, I'm happy to see more content that helps inform regular users about the downsides of these practices. Paying to give a company your DNA is absurd. As I stated on this two weeks ago: I will be waiting until I can analyze my DNA myself, without handing it over to a company that is going to do whatever it wants to with it. We are not yet able to fully appreciate how valuable DNA is, and yet everyone seems delighted to pay companies to take it from them. Perhaps they will be less delighted when they are convicted of a crime based off of a false positive, have their DNA shared with Facebook to Improve Their User Experience ™, or have their DNA made public after yet another security breach where it is left on an unsecured server. Remember that your DNA is very valuable, literally. Those who have noticed recent progress in genomics should realize how valuable it would be to a competent advertising company, allowing them to profile and predict users with significantly higher personal accuracy, even if all they are doing is performing basic GWASs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study).

Real_S 8y ago
Genetic information is probably the most valuable information about you. Your fears are well founded, but the threat matrix is growing and the sci-fi-like threats around genetic data that we will face in 10, 20, 30 years can only be imagined. For that reason, my company seeks to apply cryptography to DNA molecules. This helps avoid insider threats and hardware backdoors. We hope that our tech will be used by multiple service providers to allow you to have complete control over your genetic data security. More info at geneinfosec.com
breck 8y ago
This is analogous to the 1800s when people disagreed over whether one should let a camera take your photo. It’s an interesting debate. However, if sequencing prices and mobility (see oxford nanopore) continue to advance at current rates, in 30 years your DNA could be sequenced thousands+ of times a day, everywhere you go in public, akin to how you are photographed now with security cameras, in the background of selfies, et cetera. In that sense because of abundance there’s 0 value in our DNA. From an engineering standpoint it’s going to happen and there’s nothing you can do about it.

SilasX 8y ago

Oh, that's cute, thinking you have a choice. As DNA tests get cheaper and more powerful, a rando could get it just from hair or skin cells you leave behind. Similar issue for giving your full legal name to a stranger, which will be hard to protect has facial recognition gets better.

logifail 8y ago
> Similar issue for giving your full legal name to a stranger, which will be hard to protect has facial recognition gets better Not uploading your entire life including photos tagged with your real name to social media helps quite significantly with this.

neokantian 8y ago

They do not mention the real reason why governments are scared to death by systematic DNA testing: it trivially reveals paternity fraud. In the current climate of rampant promiscuity and related deception, it could very well affect the amount of money men provide, while inflating the already ballooning welfare budget. It is clearly a gender issue.

negus 8y ago
Cool conspiracy theory, bro.
devmunchies 8y ago
that was hinted at in point 7, no? > You could become emotionally scarred. You may discover things you weren’t prepared to find out.

formalsystem 8y ago

I used Ancestry in the past but didn't really get much info, basically I'm Mediterranean which I know I am since that's where I grew up and links to some random 6th degree cousins which TBH could be anyone given that I'm from a country with a total population of ~4M. I ended up downloading my data and canceling my Ancestry service since I wasn't comfortable with how that data could potentially be used in the future (one term of services change from sketchy stuff happening). Question to people here, what can I do with this data I've downloaded? Data was surprisingly small, just 5MB - with 5 rows: rsid, chromosome, position, allele 1, allele 2. Is there any OSS software I can run on my machine to learn something useful about myself?

howboutthis 8y ago
https://www.promethease.com/ https://www.promethease.com/
drocer88 8y ago
Go here : https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/docs/file-downloads https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/docs/file-downloads Agree to the EuroBS cookie thing then Download the tsv file and load into a spreadsheet. Then search for your "rs*" ids. (rsid is the canonical SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism, identification number ) Example "rs id" looks like rs2179129. Duckduck the rs id if you want more info. If you know a programming language, you can automate processing of the file you got from dna info provider and the the gwas catalog file from NHGRI.

abstractbarista 8y ago

I actually want to submit some other person's DNA to them, so it can be in the DB as mine. Would they notice this, assuming I find another <same race, same sex> person?

Real_S 8y ago
Genetic data can be used to identify you, so although this trick may provide some obfuscation, ultimately it would place your identifiable information in the data base. And if a close family member is in that data base, you would be identified immediately.
- ignoranceprior 8y ago
  I think you misunderstand. GP's idea was not to submit their own DNA under someone else's name, but rather to submit someone else's DNA under their own name (as a decoy).

Jerry2 8y ago

About a year ago I saw a link here on HN from an Intel(?) guy in which he listed ways that DNA info can be abused. I tried to find the talk but have been unable to. Does anyone remember the talk and has a link?

Real_S 8y ago
Excellent talk! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY
- Jerry2 8y ago
  That's the one! Thank so much Real_S! Everyone needs to watch this before you spit into that sample bottle and send it away to some giant corporation.

oarabbus_ 8y ago

Ancestry is pretty crap and a waste of money if you aren't of European descent.

EnFinlay 8y ago

"Come on we need 23 reasons because of 23 chromosomes! I don't care how stupid the list is, just hit that number"

djsumdog 8y ago

I thought these companies didn't actually sequence your DNA. Smarter Every Day did a video where they showed how your DNA samples are checked for several know markers to see if they attach. Unless you specifically allow it, the samples are then destroyed. I still wouldn't get one of these tests, mostly due to accuracy issues and because I really just don't care, but I feel like some of this article is fear mongering.

austincheney 8y ago

If pharmaceutical companies want access to my DNA then fine... they can pay me for that access. I will not give it away for free and certainly not let them charge me money for it.

BuffaloBagel 8y ago

An unknown half-brother found me after an Ancestry.com DNA test. It's been a weird but very fulfilling experience for me. I realize it's not that way for everyone.

chriscaruso 8y ago

The list was not compelling at all.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

irrational 8y ago

>You will jeopardize the anonymity of family members Too late for me. I have 7 siblings and 4 half siblings. I have 10 aunts and uncles who are blood relations (I'm not including their spouses) and about 70 first cousins. Plus my parents and grand parents. To the best of my knowledge, almost all of them have had their DNA work done by ancestry and 23andme. The family has a lot of doctors (some of whom are boarded in genetic medicine) that think everyone (not just in the family, but literally everyone) should get their DNA tested to help answer questions about family history, migrations, diseases, etc. I'm considered odd because I don't want to get mine done, though it's probably pointless since so many people that share my DNA have already done it.

astura 8y ago
You have 70 (seventy) first cousins from only 10 aunts and uncles? That seems unusual because I have 15 blood aunts and uncles yet slightly less than 30 first cousins.
- irrational 8y ago
  Well, 20 aunts and uncles (I was only including the ones I share DNA with). But yeah, most had 7+ children. My paternal grandmother, who is still living, has 100+ great-grandchildren and counting (the most recent great-grandchild was born just 2 weeks ago and quite a few other grandchildren are expecting). The leading edge of the great-grandchildren are just now reaching their early 20s and one of them has a great-great-grandchild on the way.
  - mafuy 8y ago
    I don't know your background, but in rural Vietnam (my partner's origin), that situation would not be unusual, too.
zmmmmm 8y ago
This is unfortunately the same boat everyone is in. If any 2nd or even 3rd degree relative has their DNA information banked with any of these services then you are effectively identifiable. Police or anybody who can get a sample of your DNA left behind anywhere will be able to immediately identify your family, then rapidly rule out most of the other family members through orthogonal information and in most cases you will be the only candidate remaining. So the real question is, if you already lost your anonymity, is there anything left to lose by buying in? You might as well get the benefits if you are having your privacy destroyed anyway.

golemiprague 8y ago

Privacy issues are well known, there is nothing new here. Discovering family ties and stuff like that, many people see it as positive and that's why they do the test in the first place. White supremacist using it is just a childish argument, what do I care? it is their issue. Inaccurate databases only for Europeans? it fixes itself slowly as more people use it. This is the type of grievances against "white people" that honestly become boring if not worst, hostile and divisive. The main problem I see in youtube videos is that people are ignorant and don't understand the results, questions like what is Iberian or black people surprised that they have some white blood, Italians surprised that they have some greek blood etc. But actually it is a good thing because usually those people learn something or two about geography and genetics from comments or just reading themselves.

NeoBasilisk 8y ago

I understand the sentiment of caution here, but some of those reasons listed were really dumb.