5 ms·

If your kids were born in the United States,the states already has their genetic information. https://www.babysfirsttest.org/newborn-screening/states https:/

If your kids were born in the United States,the states already has their genetic information. https://www.babysfirsttest.org/newborn-screening/states https://www.babysfirsttest.org/newborn-screening/states

0xffff2 7y ago
The US Government already has my DNA thanks to my military service. I very much hope that they aren't sharing it with private companies though. Despite the government having my DNA I would still never give it to 23 and me.
- ajphdiv 7y ago
  There are very strict laws on how that DNA can be used. Only to identify remains. You can also request it be destroyed: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Research-and-Innovation/Armed-Forces-Medical-Examiner-System/DoD-DNA-Registry/Repository-of-Specimen-Samples-for-the-Identification-of-Remains/Specimen-Destruction-Request https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Research-and-I...
- ci5er 7y ago
  I would be shocked if IAFIS didn't have that stored in South Carolina strip-mall hosted database like all the other biometrics they can get from birth, disease, criminal activity, police, federal and military service. The feds do love their biometric data.
untog 7y ago
That page doesn't say they store it? In any case, the government having this data and a private, for profit company having this data feels like two quite different things.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  Certainly, they're different. I'm pretty confident about a company's profit motive; not so much with the government which changes every few years. I don't like a company having it (and will never take such a test), but like the government even less. The government's the one that can bust down my door at 3 AM, haul me away, and shoot me if I resist.
  - katzgrau 7y ago
    A company's direction is going to be aligned with the owners/shareholders goal, which isn't always but in most cases is profit. At least we know that. Government? Who knows - whatever behavior emerges when you get a bunch of self promotors, egotists and idealists to compete amongst each other for whatever it is that each is individually competing for.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      So in other words, with companies we know for sure the data will be abused badly, as much as possible. Governments are a wildcard; today they may actually protect this data and use it mostly responsibly. Tomorrow, they may bust your head for being related to someone or some group they don't like.
      - katzgrau 7y ago
        Not really, because many companies are owned by decent people who have a personal value system and their companies are reflections of that. Most business owners I've met are good and decent people. It's actually very hard to build a great company and team if you're aren't a genuinely decent person. When a company is sold or is subject to the interests of people divorced from the original mission and values of the company, problems will likely emerge. I guess my point is that you can't really trust anybody, because humans are the fundamental building block of both corporations and government, and their personal or collective self interests emerge to create issues regardless of their structure or purpose.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        > because many companies are owned by decent people who have a personal value system and their companies are reflections of that Sure. But in context of privacy, tell me, what personal value system is reflected in companies that suck in and process that data? I mean the marketing, the adtech, the data brokerage companies? Being charitable, I imagine it's "do well unto my customers (i.e. other companies); everyone else is irrelevant". Which I guess is defensible under the moral framework exploitative capitalism, but that doesn't satisfy me as one of those "everyone else" whose data gets processed. That people in companies that abuse my data have work ethics is not reassuring me in the slightest. > When a company is sold or is subject to the interests of people divorced from the original mission and values of the company, problems will likely emerge. I think almost all of companies are like that. In particular, VC-funded startups are like that from the day one - the investors are absolutely "divorced from the original mission and values of the company". > their personal or collective self interests emerge to create issues regardless of their structure or purpose. And my point is that if you look at the structure of these self interests, how they flow in the vector field of incentives, and if you look at what capabilities peoples, companies and governments have, the picture is pretty predictable: private companies will, on average, screw you over always, incessantly; governments (at least the western kind) will be friendly most of the time, but if and when they do decide to screw you up, the immediate consequences will be much worse.
- ibeckermayer 7y ago
  Governments are made up of people capable of good and evil just the same as private companies. If we’re simply going by the historical record, governments have committed some of the world’s greatest atrocities in the name of certain genetic theories.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > governments have committed some of the world’s greatest atrocities in the name of certain genetic theories. As have private companies.
    - testrun 7y ago
      Like?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
thatfrenchguy 7y ago
I trust the government more than a for profit corp for this.
- brigandish 7y ago
  Which form of abstract grouping of people is the most trustworthy?
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    The group that you have some sort of actual say in how they operate. That usually means the government, not a private business.
    - cubano 7y ago
      I would say that statistically, over a large sample size, that the chances that either would abuse information is exactly equal.
      - celticmusic 7y ago
        I don't know that I'd say it's exactly equal, but the idea that any typical individual really has much say over the Federal Governments decisions is laughable. Even if it were your local town, city, or county government managing it, do you think they're going to fight the federal government if they ask for access to it? Over you, a nobody, when the Federal Government is going to threaten to withhold money for whatever if they don't?
        thrwaway69 7y ago
        This is why we need smaller countries in any democracy. Anything too big isn't democratic as much as political spending, alluring promises (that will be broken), campaigning, making the others look more evil than you, etc etc
      - bsanr2 7y ago
refurb 7y ago
Indeed! Nearly every state does a heal prick of newborns and screens their DNA for a host of genetic disorders.

0xffff2 7y ago

The US Government already has my DNA thanks to my military service. I very much hope that they aren't sharing it with private companies though. Despite the government having my DNA I would still never give it to 23 and me.

ajphdiv 7y ago
There are very strict laws on how that DNA can be used. Only to identify remains. You can also request it be destroyed: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Research-and-Innovation/Armed-Forces-Medical-Examiner-System/DoD-DNA-Registry/Repository-of-Specimen-Samples-for-the-Identification-of-Remains/Specimen-Destruction-Request https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Research-and-I...
ci5er 7y ago
I would be shocked if IAFIS didn't have that stored in South Carolina strip-mall hosted database like all the other biometrics they can get from birth, disease, criminal activity, police, federal and military service. The feds do love their biometric data.

untog 7y ago

That page doesn't say they store it? In any case, the government having this data and a private, for profit company having this data feels like two quite different things.

big_chungus 7y ago
Certainly, they're different. I'm pretty confident about a company's profit motive; not so much with the government which changes every few years. I don't like a company having it (and will never take such a test), but like the government even less. The government's the one that can bust down my door at 3 AM, haul me away, and shoot me if I resist.
- katzgrau 7y ago
  A company's direction is going to be aligned with the owners/shareholders goal, which isn't always but in most cases is profit. At least we know that. Government? Who knows - whatever behavior emerges when you get a bunch of self promotors, egotists and idealists to compete amongst each other for whatever it is that each is individually competing for.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    So in other words, with companies we know for sure the data will be abused badly, as much as possible. Governments are a wildcard; today they may actually protect this data and use it mostly responsibly. Tomorrow, they may bust your head for being related to someone or some group they don't like.
    - katzgrau 7y ago
      Not really, because many companies are owned by decent people who have a personal value system and their companies are reflections of that. Most business owners I've met are good and decent people. It's actually very hard to build a great company and team if you're aren't a genuinely decent person. When a company is sold or is subject to the interests of people divorced from the original mission and values of the company, problems will likely emerge. I guess my point is that you can't really trust anybody, because humans are the fundamental building block of both corporations and government, and their personal or collective self interests emerge to create issues regardless of their structure or purpose.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        > because many companies are owned by decent people who have a personal value system and their companies are reflections of that Sure. But in context of privacy, tell me, what personal value system is reflected in companies that suck in and process that data? I mean the marketing, the adtech, the data brokerage companies? Being charitable, I imagine it's "do well unto my customers (i.e. other companies); everyone else is irrelevant". Which I guess is defensible under the moral framework exploitative capitalism, but that doesn't satisfy me as one of those "everyone else" whose data gets processed. That people in companies that abuse my data have work ethics is not reassuring me in the slightest. > When a company is sold or is subject to the interests of people divorced from the original mission and values of the company, problems will likely emerge. I think almost all of companies are like that. In particular, VC-funded startups are like that from the day one - the investors are absolutely "divorced from the original mission and values of the company". > their personal or collective self interests emerge to create issues regardless of their structure or purpose. And my point is that if you look at the structure of these self interests, how they flow in the vector field of incentives, and if you look at what capabilities peoples, companies and governments have, the picture is pretty predictable: private companies will, on average, screw you over always, incessantly; governments (at least the western kind) will be friendly most of the time, but if and when they do decide to screw you up, the immediate consequences will be much worse.
ibeckermayer 7y ago
Governments are made up of people capable of good and evil just the same as private companies. If we’re simply going by the historical record, governments have committed some of the world’s greatest atrocities in the name of certain genetic theories.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > governments have committed some of the world’s greatest atrocities in the name of certain genetic theories. As have private companies.
  - testrun 7y ago
    Like?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

thatfrenchguy 7y ago

I trust the government more than a for profit corp for this.

brigandish 7y ago
Which form of abstract grouping of people is the most trustworthy?
- JohnFen 7y ago
  The group that you have some sort of actual say in how they operate. That usually means the government, not a private business.
  - cubano 7y ago
    I would say that statistically, over a large sample size, that the chances that either would abuse information is exactly equal.
    - celticmusic 7y ago
      I don't know that I'd say it's exactly equal, but the idea that any typical individual really has much say over the Federal Governments decisions is laughable. Even if it were your local town, city, or county government managing it, do you think they're going to fight the federal government if they ask for access to it? Over you, a nobody, when the Federal Government is going to threaten to withhold money for whatever if they don't?
      - thrwaway69 7y ago
        This is why we need smaller countries in any democracy. Anything too big isn't democratic as much as political spending, alluring promises (that will be broken), campaigning, making the others look more evil than you, etc etc
    - bsanr2 7y ago

refurb 7y ago

Indeed! Nearly every state does a heal prick of newborns and screens their DNA for a host of genetic disorders.