4 ms·

What is the impact of having your DNA known? As far as I can tell the worst case scenarios are finding out you have to pay child support or getting placed at th

What is the impact of having your DNA known? As far as I can tell the worst case scenarios are finding out you have to pay child support or getting placed at the scene of a crime. If those risks don't apply to you, who cares?

dfee 6y ago
If you’ve got nothing to hide... then make it all public. Let’s start with your finances.
- leafboi 6y ago
  Finances are different right? People tend to hide their finances because of taxes and other illegal shit, and also to prevent jealousy. As for genetics, most of your genetics are on display every time you walk out the door. People look at you and they can have a good guess about a huge portion of your genes. For example if you have a beard and a penis you probably have a Y chromosome, though this is more challenging to figure out nowadays. Thus mostly their's really nothing left to hide in terms of genetics. In terms of finances... while I specifically have nothing to hide, more people have things to hide in this area.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- all_blue_chucks 6y ago
  I openly talk about my finances with anyone who wants to talk personal finance. What threat are you imagining this could pose?
  - daveevad 6y ago
    let's start with your bank account and routing numbers.
    - all_blue_chucks 6y ago
      I share that information when it benefits me. That's the basis of ACH. Next?
      - kazagistar 6y ago
        Specific pornographic preferences and fetishes? Nothing illegal there, no reason to hide.
        all_blue_chucks 6y ago
        What is the advantage of sharing that information?
- Kiro 6y ago
  That argument is so bad and is so inefficient that it does more harm than good. People sacrifice their privacy as a trade-off to get something. What do they get by simply releasing all their finances? Every time I've used it they just laugh it off with "why would I do that?" and think I'm ridiculous.
nickff 6y ago
This is a variant of “the honest have nothing to hide” argument, which is just wrong.
- all_blue_chucks 6y ago
  No, it is not. That argument is about what should be legal. We are discussing what is personally risky. These are completely different concepts.
Polylactic_acid 6y ago
What are the benefits of you knowing? Seems like the only reason is mild curiosity.
- all_blue_chucks 6y ago
  The benefits of personal DNA tests are learning about your health and your genealogy.
austhrow743 6y ago
Getting placed at the scene of a crime applies to everyone. Remember that once you do it, it’s out there forever. So you can’t just rely on “I haven’t and won’t break any laws that exist in my country right now”. Having certain characteristics that show up in your test could be illegal in 20 years time. You don’t know.
- all_blue_chucks 6y ago
  That's an interesting point, but if your government becomes blatantly oppressive they don't need DNA to do it.
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    No but the DNA database helps them track you down.
    - all_blue_chucks 6y ago
      Sure. They might outlaw brown hair, too. They might outlaw last names with vowels. That hypothetical, imaginary risk doesn't make it sensible to dye your hair and change your name.
      - asenk 6y ago
        Tell the 6 million Jews, hundreds of thousands to million+ Romanis, and hundreds of thousands of disabled who were systematically exterminated by gassing, shootings, starvation and various other means that being outlawed is a "hypothetical risk". Even beyond WW2 to say what you said is so incredibly against any form of historical understanding that one must start to wonder what your motive with it is.
        all_blue_chucks 6y ago
        Your motive appears to be to troll from a position of ignorance. No, DNA tests do not cause holocausts.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cortic 6y ago
I was just wondering if this one leak would spur a hike in organ thefts. Or a spike in abusive husbands and fathers, pedophiles and rapists tracking down the victims that escaped them. Even if this doesn't happen, the future is a devious thing; I think we will eventually get to a stage of gene oppression; We have went through periods of oppressing and persecuting religion and ethnicity. DNA seems even more vulnerable to this kind of prejudice. And even if we can secure some legal protection, to the million peoples families, that won't matter now. I don't know what will happen in the future, but i can imagine how much smoother the holocaust would have went if DNA were public.
- all_blue_chucks 6y ago
  Organ theft and the holocaust? If that's what you're worried about your problems are already much much much more severe than what we're discussing here.
  - asenk 6y ago
    What problems would you rate as more severe than being gassed alive or having your organs stolen?
  - cortic 6y ago
    we should always try to minimize future catastrophes by enshrining rights and regulation around issues that could contribute to them. We should not be tricked into ignoring these issues because catastrophes are rare, as this would logically make them less rare.
pavel_lishin 6y ago
> If those risks don't apply to you, who cares? Others have mentioned that that's a bad argument, so I won't rehash that. > getting placed at the scene of a crime That's a pretty damn bad "worst case scenario", but here's a few I'm going to toss out without too much thought: 1. Health insurance companies can deny you coverage. In America, that can be a literal death sentence. (Yes, GINA 2008 was passed, no, I don't want to bet my future health care coverage on it not being repealed, mangled, or bypassed in some other way.) 2. International risks. A lot of discussion here is largely focused on American law. But many of us aren't American, or aren't just American. Look at my username; I have ties to another country, and I frankly have no idea what sort of risk I might get exposed to there. Getting placed at the scene of a crime in some jurisdictions is much more serious than you make it out to be; being identified as being a relative of someone else could also have dire consequences. 3. You know those scams where Grandpa Joe gets a frantic call from his distraught granddaughter Jane, and she's in Mexico being held up on a bogus charge, but if he wires their police department $500 ($5000?) the whole thing goes away? This becomes much easier if you can look up family histories. 4. You cannot predict the future. You have no idea what's coming down the pipeline.
- all_blue_chucks 6y ago
  I'm not seeing anything compelling in any of your 5 points. 0. You are arguing that people who aren't subject to a specific risk should be worrying about being subject to that risk. That is a bad argument. So bad it feels absurd to have to type it out to you. 1. The law could change in the future? OK... Laws could change in an infinite number of ways. I can't mitigate an infinite number of risks. 2. If you visit a country where this is a risk to you, then avoid the risk. Nobody said otherwise. It is dishonest to argue with strawmen. 3. There are many easy ways to find someone's relatives. DNA does not change this situation in a material way. 4. Yes, I agree that you cannot predict the future. But much of your argument is based on the assumption that you can do so.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dfee 6y ago

If you’ve got nothing to hide... then make it all public. Let’s start with your finances.

leafboi 6y ago
Finances are different right? People tend to hide their finances because of taxes and other illegal shit, and also to prevent jealousy. As for genetics, most of your genetics are on display every time you walk out the door. People look at you and they can have a good guess about a huge portion of your genes. For example if you have a beard and a penis you probably have a Y chromosome, though this is more challenging to figure out nowadays. Thus mostly their's really nothing left to hide in terms of genetics. In terms of finances... while I specifically have nothing to hide, more people have things to hide in this area.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
all_blue_chucks 6y ago
I openly talk about my finances with anyone who wants to talk personal finance. What threat are you imagining this could pose?
- daveevad 6y ago
  let's start with your bank account and routing numbers.
  - all_blue_chucks 6y ago
    I share that information when it benefits me. That's the basis of ACH. Next?
    - kazagistar 6y ago
      Specific pornographic preferences and fetishes? Nothing illegal there, no reason to hide.
      - all_blue_chucks 6y ago
        What is the advantage of sharing that information?
Kiro 6y ago
That argument is so bad and is so inefficient that it does more harm than good. People sacrifice their privacy as a trade-off to get something. What do they get by simply releasing all their finances? Every time I've used it they just laugh it off with "why would I do that?" and think I'm ridiculous.

nickff 6y ago

This is a variant of “the honest have nothing to hide” argument, which is just wrong.

all_blue_chucks 6y ago
No, it is not. That argument is about what should be legal. We are discussing what is personally risky. These are completely different concepts.

Polylactic_acid 6y ago

What are the benefits of you knowing? Seems like the only reason is mild curiosity.

all_blue_chucks 6y ago
The benefits of personal DNA tests are learning about your health and your genealogy.

austhrow743 6y ago

Getting placed at the scene of a crime applies to everyone. Remember that once you do it, it’s out there forever. So you can’t just rely on “I haven’t and won’t break any laws that exist in my country right now”. Having certain characteristics that show up in your test could be illegal in 20 years time. You don’t know.

all_blue_chucks 6y ago
That's an interesting point, but if your government becomes blatantly oppressive they don't need DNA to do it.
- austhrow743 6y ago
  No but the DNA database helps them track you down.
  - all_blue_chucks 6y ago
    Sure. They might outlaw brown hair, too. They might outlaw last names with vowels. That hypothetical, imaginary risk doesn't make it sensible to dye your hair and change your name.
    - asenk 6y ago
      Tell the 6 million Jews, hundreds of thousands to million+ Romanis, and hundreds of thousands of disabled who were systematically exterminated by gassing, shootings, starvation and various other means that being outlawed is a "hypothetical risk". Even beyond WW2 to say what you said is so incredibly against any form of historical understanding that one must start to wonder what your motive with it is.
      - all_blue_chucks 6y ago
        Your motive appears to be to troll from a position of ignorance. No, DNA tests do not cause holocausts.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cortic 6y ago

I was just wondering if this one leak would spur a hike in organ thefts. Or a spike in abusive husbands and fathers, pedophiles and rapists tracking down the victims that escaped them. Even if this doesn't happen, the future is a devious thing; I think we will eventually get to a stage of gene oppression; We have went through periods of oppressing and persecuting religion and ethnicity. DNA seems even more vulnerable to this kind of prejudice. And even if we can secure some legal protection, to the million peoples families, that won't matter now. I don't know what will happen in the future, but i can imagine how much smoother the holocaust would have went if DNA were public.

all_blue_chucks 6y ago
Organ theft and the holocaust? If that's what you're worried about your problems are already much much much more severe than what we're discussing here.
- asenk 6y ago
  What problems would you rate as more severe than being gassed alive or having your organs stolen?
- cortic 6y ago
  we should always try to minimize future catastrophes by enshrining rights and regulation around issues that could contribute to them. We should not be tricked into ignoring these issues because catastrophes are rare, as this would logically make them less rare.

pavel_lishin 6y ago

> If those risks don't apply to you, who cares? Others have mentioned that that's a bad argument, so I won't rehash that. > getting placed at the scene of a crime That's a pretty damn bad "worst case scenario", but here's a few I'm going to toss out without too much thought: 1. Health insurance companies can deny you coverage. In America, that can be a literal death sentence. (Yes, GINA 2008 was passed, no, I don't want to bet my future health care coverage on it not being repealed, mangled, or bypassed in some other way.) 2. International risks. A lot of discussion here is largely focused on American law. But many of us aren't American, or aren't just American. Look at my username; I have ties to another country, and I frankly have no idea what sort of risk I might get exposed to there. Getting placed at the scene of a crime in some jurisdictions is much more serious than you make it out to be; being identified as being a relative of someone else could also have dire consequences. 3. You know those scams where Grandpa Joe gets a frantic call from his distraught granddaughter Jane, and she's in Mexico being held up on a bogus charge, but if he wires their police department $500 ($5000?) the whole thing goes away? This becomes much easier if you can look up family histories. 4. You cannot predict the future. You have no idea what's coming down the pipeline.

all_blue_chucks 6y ago
I'm not seeing anything compelling in any of your 5 points. 0. You are arguing that people who aren't subject to a specific risk should be worrying about being subject to that risk. That is a bad argument. So bad it feels absurd to have to type it out to you. 1. The law could change in the future? OK... Laws could change in an infinite number of ways. I can't mitigate an infinite number of risks. 2. If you visit a country where this is a risk to you, then avoid the risk. Nobody said otherwise. It is dishonest to argue with strawmen. 3. There are many easy ways to find someone's relatives. DNA does not change this situation in a material way. 4. Yes, I agree that you cannot predict the future. But much of your argument is based on the assumption that you can do so.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]