3 ms·

Aren't we moving the goalposts as technology advances? For instance, your DNA used to be private in the past simply because no one could do anything with it ev

by mtgx 7y ago

Aren't we moving the goalposts as technology advances? For instance, your DNA used to be private in the past simply because no one could do anything with it even if they would get it. So you benefited from this privacy aspect by default. In the next 20 years your DNA will probably be in multiple databases somewhere even if you never offered it to companies. Similarly, in the past you may have benefited from the privacy of your own home. You could say or do anything you wanted and that would be kept private (for the most part). Now, with all the "always-on" smartphones and smart home devices and surveillance cameras, everything you do or say in your home will be on someone else's server, which can be data mined, sold to third-parties, requested by various law enforcement agencies, and stolen by cybercriminals. It seems to me that from your point of view and with enough technology advances we'll have 0% privacy in the future. Everything around us will listen to us and watch us, and then others, with who you may have never interacted, will also get to see and analyze all of that data. So the technology could enable all of this -- but the question is should we let it? Privacy is a human right for a very good reason -- abuses against someone's private life can lead to all sorts of nefarious things against that person, whether it's something as "benign" as increasing your insurance rates to not offering your free/cheap healthcare because you "live too dangerously" or malicious actors and government agents using it to destroy your life for profit or personal vendettas.

endorphone 7y ago
In the case of smart devices in your home we do still have a choice -- just don't buy them or use them, or ensure that the ones you do use have strong protections, etc. However with DNA it is like you are screaming it in countless public places daily and it was only ignorance that protected its privacy. That time is rapidly coming to a close. The cost and time of processing it, once prohibited, has fallen through the floor and soon enough just doing mass dragnets is going to be trivial. It seems likely that generating facial profiles from DNA is not too far off either. Couple that with a facial recognition system and you have a deep identity. We should fight it as possible, but we'll see how far that gets us.
rotrux 7y ago
Unless research in this area is policed, outlawing the practice will drive it underground or to another country with less qualms. One problem with trying to ban incorporeal things like genetic sequencing algorithms is that you can't control supply like you can with guns or really any physical good that has a high capital expenditure requirement. You say "should we let it" like that wouldn't mean getting way more draconian about policing information. How do you prevent people from sharing their own DNA? How do you keep people from reading and remembering it?

by mtgx 7y ago

endorphone 7y ago

In the case of smart devices in your home we do still have a choice -- just don't buy them or use them, or ensure that the ones you do use have strong protections, etc. However with DNA it is like you are screaming it in countless public places daily and it was only ignorance that protected its privacy. That time is rapidly coming to a close. The cost and time of processing it, once prohibited, has fallen through the floor and soon enough just doing mass dragnets is going to be trivial. It seems likely that generating facial profiles from DNA is not too far off either. Couple that with a facial recognition system and you have a deep identity. We should fight it as possible, but we'll see how far that gets us.

rotrux 7y ago

Unless research in this area is policed, outlawing the practice will drive it underground or to another country with less qualms. One problem with trying to ban incorporeal things like genetic sequencing algorithms is that you can't control supply like you can with guns or really any physical good that has a high capital expenditure requirement. You say "should we let it" like that wouldn't mean getting way more draconian about policing information. How do you prevent people from sharing their own DNA? How do you keep people from reading and remembering it?