5 ms·

Yeah, this isn't science fiction or conspiracy theory anymore. Several high-profile cold cases have gone hot as police have been trawling the datasets submitted

Yeah, this isn't science fiction or conspiracy theory anymore. Several high-profile cold cases have gone hot as police have been trawling the datasets submitted to 23AndMe et al and investigating the family trees of persons whose DNA is similar-ish to the samples in unsolved cases. [0] The results are mainly bupkis anyway, and you're paying for the privilege of having police agencies across the country (world?) give extra scrutiny to you and all of your relations. No thanks. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/27/golden-state-killer-dna-website-gedmatch-was-used-to-identify-joseph-deangelo-as-suspect-police-say/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/27...

glennpratt 7y ago
It's all tradeoffs, I want some privacy, but I also like crimes being solved. In fact, I'd see that as a benefit even if I'm related to criminals. Of course this assumes it is used correctly and fairly, which is the hard part.
- slimed 7y ago
  Stunning naivete on display here
  - ewoodrich 7y ago
    How so? They point out the difficulty balancing personal privacy and tools to identify criminals who have evaded justice. Just because you don't agree with the relative importance placed on either side doesn't make them dumb or naive.
    - CaptainZapp 7y ago
      What makes you naive is if you put any smidegeon of hope into the fact that insurance companies will not hesitate to buy and abuse such data to fuck you over left, right and central then you really are beyond help. If you want to risk that, fine. But you're also screwing all your relatives in the same swell process. And that's not only naive and dumb, that's totally reckless.
      - kalleboo 7y ago
        The solution to that is to abolish or neuter your insurance companies like the us in the rest of the world did. The fact that a private for-profit company decides if you live or die is absurd.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Last I checked, medical and life insurance is a thing everywhere else in the world as well. While a public healthcare system will pay for your treatment, it will not pay for the loss of earnings/business during your stay in the hospital and convalescence, nor will it pay you if you end up with a permanent disability (social security may cover a pittance of the latter).
        kalleboo 7y ago
        That's why I also stuck the word "neuter" in there. It's not difficult to regulate what insurance companies are allowed to consider. Data brokerage can also be regulated (the GDPR would not allow 23andme to sell genetic data to insurance companies without strict opt-in)
        CaptainZapp 7y ago
        the GDPR would not allow 23andme to sell genetic data to insurance companies without strict opt-in That's true. But there's a different issue and the very reason why I would never do such testing. An insurance company cannot enforce a genetic test on you in order to write a policy. What they can and will do, however, is ask you in the questionaire for such a policy if you did a genetic test and if yes they would oblige you to share the results before writing a policy. The problem here is you can't lie. If you did a test and you deny it and it's proven later that you lied the insurance will refuse coverage. So it's in your best interest not to get tested at all. My understanding is that it's very different in the US. Such data is insanely valuable to insurers and that directly translates to the prices they're willing to pay for it. Unethical? Sure as hell. Illegal? Probably not without a strong legal framework.
        7y ago
    - turk73 7y ago
      How so? Because we already know who all the people are who are committing 99% of the crimes. We don't do shit about it! They get arrested and turned back out onto the streets. So how would new technology matter? And you know what else would be cool? To see some prosecutions of the real, big-time crooks like the Biden family! That would at least enable me to continue believing that this country isn't an oligarchy. From where I'm sitting, the just-us system looks pretty two-tiered.
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  This is similar to the typical "encryption is for pedophiles" argument. Privacy doesn't mean that I am a criminal and/or my brother/sister/father/mother/children/cousins are murderers. I also like ALL crimes to be solved and the guilty ones to get what they should, and the innocent ones to be living a life outside jail. But we got something called "fundamental rights" (at least imho). One of them is privacy. NOT having an insurance company ripping me off because my father had X-Y-Z disease is another right I would like to have. They are already making billions as is. The ones that don't, should get their s..t straight and stop bleeding money for stupid reasons (yes I know from experience). No need to give them the bullet that will injure me (financially). I think that all these DNA tests was a fad. Kinda like facebook was. People realize that they get very little value from it, and it most likely come back and kick them in the shin one way or another.
- lenkite 7y ago
  What about when devices come that are sensitive to read people's minds as they walk down the sidewalk ? Monitoring citizens minds would be a tremendous boost to solving crimes. This rule will be equitably applied to all citizens by a fair and principled government excepting special groups like oppressed minorities or members of the government/military themselves.
- stjohnswarts 7y ago
  I personally feel that privacy and individuality holds much more value than solving crime. I hope society never comes to the point that they'll allow government to do anything to them in order to provide "safety"

glennpratt 7y ago

It's all tradeoffs, I want some privacy, but I also like crimes being solved. In fact, I'd see that as a benefit even if I'm related to criminals. Of course this assumes it is used correctly and fairly, which is the hard part.

slimed 7y ago
Stunning naivete on display here
- ewoodrich 7y ago
  How so? They point out the difficulty balancing personal privacy and tools to identify criminals who have evaded justice. Just because you don't agree with the relative importance placed on either side doesn't make them dumb or naive.
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    What makes you naive is if you put any smidegeon of hope into the fact that insurance companies will not hesitate to buy and abuse such data to fuck you over left, right and central then you really are beyond help. If you want to risk that, fine. But you're also screwing all your relatives in the same swell process. And that's not only naive and dumb, that's totally reckless.
    - kalleboo 7y ago
      The solution to that is to abolish or neuter your insurance companies like the us in the rest of the world did. The fact that a private for-profit company decides if you live or die is absurd.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Last I checked, medical and life insurance is a thing everywhere else in the world as well. While a public healthcare system will pay for your treatment, it will not pay for the loss of earnings/business during your stay in the hospital and convalescence, nor will it pay you if you end up with a permanent disability (social security may cover a pittance of the latter).
        kalleboo 7y ago
        That's why I also stuck the word "neuter" in there. It's not difficult to regulate what insurance companies are allowed to consider. Data brokerage can also be regulated (the GDPR would not allow 23andme to sell genetic data to insurance companies without strict opt-in)
        CaptainZapp 7y ago
        the GDPR would not allow 23andme to sell genetic data to insurance companies without strict opt-in That's true. But there's a different issue and the very reason why I would never do such testing. An insurance company cannot enforce a genetic test on you in order to write a policy. What they can and will do, however, is ask you in the questionaire for such a policy if you did a genetic test and if yes they would oblige you to share the results before writing a policy. The problem here is you can't lie. If you did a test and you deny it and it's proven later that you lied the insurance will refuse coverage. So it's in your best interest not to get tested at all. My understanding is that it's very different in the US. Such data is insanely valuable to insurers and that directly translates to the prices they're willing to pay for it. Unethical? Sure as hell. Illegal? Probably not without a strong legal framework.
        7y ago
  - turk73 7y ago
    How so? Because we already know who all the people are who are committing 99% of the crimes. We don't do shit about it! They get arrested and turned back out onto the streets. So how would new technology matter? And you know what else would be cool? To see some prosecutions of the real, big-time crooks like the Biden family! That would at least enable me to continue believing that this country isn't an oligarchy. From where I'm sitting, the just-us system looks pretty two-tiered.
HenryBemis 7y ago
This is similar to the typical "encryption is for pedophiles" argument. Privacy doesn't mean that I am a criminal and/or my brother/sister/father/mother/children/cousins are murderers. I also like ALL crimes to be solved and the guilty ones to get what they should, and the innocent ones to be living a life outside jail. But we got something called "fundamental rights" (at least imho). One of them is privacy. NOT having an insurance company ripping me off because my father had X-Y-Z disease is another right I would like to have. They are already making billions as is. The ones that don't, should get their s..t straight and stop bleeding money for stupid reasons (yes I know from experience). No need to give them the bullet that will injure me (financially). I think that all these DNA tests was a fad. Kinda like facebook was. People realize that they get very little value from it, and it most likely come back and kick them in the shin one way or another.
lenkite 7y ago
What about when devices come that are sensitive to read people's minds as they walk down the sidewalk ? Monitoring citizens minds would be a tremendous boost to solving crimes. This rule will be equitably applied to all citizens by a fair and principled government excepting special groups like oppressed minorities or members of the government/military themselves.
stjohnswarts 7y ago
I personally feel that privacy and individuality holds much more value than solving crime. I hope society never comes to the point that they'll allow government to do anything to them in order to provide "safety"