4 ms·
> 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
by jakereps 7y 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 7y agoYes, 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 7y agoThat 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 7y agoI 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 7y agoSeveral 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 7y agoTotally this ^ I think those people never received good socks as a present, poor bastards.
- mrmuagi 7y agoI really agree with you. Specifically, "20. Genes can be hacked." reads ridiculously to me. >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 nonsense of the highest order. People can print the binary of malware on a reams of laser printed paper. Do I still trust paper? The generalisation of the arguments made in this article is egregiously fallacious. The notion of gifting socks just seems to bring in Christmas-like warmth and appeal to the readers past experiences (who hasn't been gifted cloths...). All in all, you are right, the sock gifting doesn't fit, even if it is an admittedly better idea.
- Balgair 7y agoI believe that the bullet point is meant to illustrate that silly things can be easily put into your genetics, therefore it is also easy to put in malicious things. The BRCA1 gene being an example of a malicious set of genetic code [0]. In addition to harm to the person whose genes may be edited in the future, you can then modify the genes sent into the companies so that they can hack the companies. I'd imagine that pulling a 'Jimmy DROP TABLE Reads);' [1] is not something that the machines are QA'd against. Also, if you were to use the databases of these companies as a 'storage' for future comparisons, nothing is stopping anyone from putting strange stuff into your digital representation of the code. Essentially, the companies aren't doing QA on their genes and they should. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRCA1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRCA1 [1] https://xkcd.com/327/ https://xkcd.com/327/