7 ms·

In the article there is a quote, “There is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA.“ This seems a bogus assertion to me. I can imagine many diagnostic hea

In the article there is a quote, “There is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA.“ This seems a bogus assertion to me. I can imagine many diagnostic health test results that would be more sensitive to leak than DNA (e.g., STD and drug tests). DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway. Having published my own results (https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/ https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/), I really don’t buy into the idea that DNA is the most personal data that can be leaked. (Nevertheless, there should be more obvious warnings to customers about how their data will be monetized.) Edit: I think I failed to make clear that while I agree that DNA is "personal" data, I don't think it is the most "sensitive" personal data. If I had an identical twin and he released his DNA, I would not care. If I had syphilis and my test results were leaked, I would be upset about that.

endisneigh 5y ago
Can STD and drug tests be disambiguated back to the person without attached PII? It seems that DNA is inherently the most personal data imaginable.
- mcculley 5y ago
  Those swabs have identity attached to them already.
taneq 5y ago
> DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway. Photography is so cheap and ubiquitous that it happens to everyone anyway. That still doesn't mean it's OK for you to sell photos of me in a private setting without my permission. It's nice that you've chosen to publish your own genome but I bet you'd feel a little different if someone else had published it without your consent.
- mcculley 5y ago
- ghaff 5y ago
  In private? Mostly not. But with some exceptions (basically for marketing or advertising purposes--unless it's allowed by the Ts & Cs of some event which is common) any photo taken in public (basically outside your home) is fair game. ADDED: For those disagreeing: In general, I'll generally respect your wishes if you don't want your photo taken. But (in the US) if you're in a public place, you have no legal recourse (outside of some specific commercial uses). And that's how things are and will continue to be.
  - tremon 5y ago
    https://www.longmores.law/articles/data-protection-issues-for-photographers/ https://www.longmores.law/articles/data-protection-issues-fo... (2014)
    - ghaff 5y ago
      First of all, that's the UK. Secondly, there is a lot of hand waving on that page. The bottom line is that if I take a picture of you in a public space like a park and publish it without a misleading caption on my blog, you have no real recourse (although the reality is that if it was just there for no particular purpose and you asked me to take it down after the fact I probably would).
inglor_cz 5y ago
For now. But 20 years down the line, it may be possible to create personalized poisons etc. And you cannot change your DNA like you can your password. That said, I am not sure how this can be prevented either. We leave traces of our DNA everywhere.
- machiaweliczny 5y ago
  Yeah but it's little different when they have to target you and different' when someone on the internet can remotely kill you by programming a (biological) virus.
- ThePowerOfDirge 5y ago
  A super-inefficient personalized poison.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    How do you know that? For some people, a tiny amount of peanuts is deadly. The rest of us can gorge on them without any ill effects whatsoever. Perhaps there many other such substances that cause a runaway reaction in a tiny minority of people. We do not know.
ajxs 5y ago
> DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway. This same argument be made to justify any erosion of personal privacy. With the level of technical sophistication western society has now, just about any invasion of privacy is too cheap to meter. Take IoT for instance. Just because it's possible for large corporations to infringe upon the privacy of individuals for pennies doesn't mean that we should just go ahead and accept it.
- mcculley 5y ago
  It does not matter how we feel about it. Every license plate scanner, every Ring doorbell, every security camera I walk by is potentially selling data.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    It does, if people actually cared they'd be rioting in the streets, maybe burn down some corporate headquarters
    - mcculley 5y ago
      Would burning down a building make it illegal to sell photos taken in public places?
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Well getting millions of people out to protest should, otherwise do we have a democracy? Bruning down building is more of a bug than a feature.
    - cute_boi 5y ago
      People do care about privacy. But, they don't have any power. Many people have to go to work, and they don't have time to fiddle in rioting etc. And, there is high chance that these people will be called terrorist for rioting such things. In fact some will even claim they are destroying property, and they should be incarcerated. And, there can be cases like rats in the group are taking advantage of protest. We can see this with BLM where few people deceived entire world by committing shenanigans in name of doing deeds. Also, if people riot, there is no way to be sure that a positive thing will happen. We can clearly see this from Arab Spring. Many people thought there would be liberation, but what we got in return? Dictators got removed, just to be replaced by another dictator. In fact, it backfired and now autocrats have more power than past. Those days are gone where we ended horrific things like slavery and liberated the world with democracy. We have become too greedy with the capitalist society, as indicated by covid scenario. Sorry, for digressing.
gmadsen 5y ago
drug test? how about dna markers that say you are likely to have a drug problem?
- mcculley 5y ago
  My 23andMe results show that I have the rs2472297 marker associated with slightly increased caffeine consumption. I also have the Irish ancestry associated with alcoholism that has been a problem in my family. I still consider my current diagnostic health test results to be more "sensitive" than the personal data I inherited and have no control over.
  - gmadsen 5y ago
    fyi, 23andme decodes less than 1% of your genome. Full decoding is getting cheaper every year. New genetic papers come out every week. Even if you think it isn't that big of a deal at the moment, who knows what will be able to be inferred from a full genome in 10 years from now.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      I realize that. I don’t think my stance will change. The DNA I was born with is less important and sensitive to me than my decisions and outcomes.
vaylian 5y ago
> DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway. That still doesn't imply that DNA will be shared freely. On the contrary, it is important that we ensure that people retain control over their own genetic information.
- mcculley 5y ago
  How do you propose that people “retain control”? We leave copies of our DNA everywhere. Even if I were very careful, my relatives and potential descendants can leak enough information to piece my DNA together.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
> "DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway" Filming porn is going to be so cheap it's going to happen to everyone anyway
- mcculley 5y ago
  I think of this every time someone tells me they used AirBnB.
raxxorrax 5y ago
You can still legislate access pretty easily. Cameras are ubiquitous and you still are not allowed to take pictures of anyone in any situation.
- mcculley 5y ago
  Please elaborate. I do not understand what you mean about the photos and I do not see how legislation would be easy where there is free speech combined with free markets.
iypx 5y ago
Imagine you're 38 years old, you go like a normal person to a normal persons job interview. Now your new employer obviously doesn't have access to your DNA, but he has an active subscription to "NaturalCheck(tm)whatever" which does have access to most people's DNAs. Sorry, we can't hire you, your NaturalCheck came back as red. You call NaturalCheck, after getting tossed through 2-3 support staff you finally learn your dna has some markers for some kind of cancer. Welcome to a new world. P.S. If you think this is unrealistic: Credit check? Credit score? I see people have no problem with this stuff...
- mcculley 5y ago
  "Under Title II of GINA, it is illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information." (https://www.eeoc.gov/genetic-information-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/genetic-information-discrimination) Potential employers also have photos of me that indicate my skin color. We have laws against discrimination over some attributes.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    That's what "poor culture fit" is for. Technically illegal and enforcably illegal are not the same. People with pregnancies or disabilities get fired all the time; as long as they're not putting "we're firing you for getting prengant" in writing somewhere, chances are they get away with it.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      That criminals can commit crimes does not change the fact that this personal data will be easily found. I am still unconvinced that it is the most "sensitive" personal data.
  - cute_boi 5y ago
    Over speeding is also illegal. Yet, we see a lot of people committing it. Same here, they will say they care about equal rights, but in reality they oust pregnant ladies, old peoples etc..
jmcgready 5y ago
> In the article there is a quote, “There is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA.“ > This seems a bogus assertion to me. I can imagine many diagnostic health test results that would be more sensitive to leak than DNA (e.g., STD and drug tests). > DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway. > Having published my own results (https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/ https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/), I really don’t buy into the idea that DNA is the most personal data that can be leaked. > (Nevertheless, there should be more obvious warnings to customers about how their data will be monetized.) > In the article there is a quote, “There is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA.“ > This seems a bogus assertion to me. I can imagine many diagnostic health test results that would be more sensitive to leak than DNA (e.g., STD and drug tests). It's still PHI, and in this case subject to at least the Data Protection Act. The walk-in centers at Gatwick and Heathrow may have tested non-UK citizens. If so, they may run into compliance issues with GDPR or other privacy regs. Not sure how that plays out. Guess I'll have to wait for the investigation results.... > Having published my own results (https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/ https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/), I really don’t buy into the idea that DNA is the most personal data that can be leaked. Being as (at least in the US) DNA is used as evidence to conclusively identify (or exclude) those accused of crime (i.e. rape kits, etc) I'd say that a court of law would consider it to be essentially personal info.
- mcculley 5y ago
  I agree it is "personal data". I disagree that it is "more sensitive" than other data.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    When Edgar Sengier amassed Shinkolobwe Uranium prior to the Manhattan project, was the sensitivity less because the bomb did not yet exist?
    - mcculley 5y ago
      I agree that value is added merely by aggregation. Nevertheless, my diagnostic health test results are more sensitive to me than my DNA is. I imagine this is so for the vast majority.
sascha_sl 5y ago
As always, it'll probably not affect most people, but some people will have very interesting markers/indicators on their DNA that might be worth protecting more than an STD or drug test.

endisneigh 5y ago

Can STD and drug tests be disambiguated back to the person without attached PII? It seems that DNA is inherently the most personal data imaginable.

mcculley 5y ago
Those swabs have identity attached to them already.

taneq 5y ago

> DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway. Photography is so cheap and ubiquitous that it happens to everyone anyway. That still doesn't mean it's OK for you to sell photos of me in a private setting without my permission. It's nice that you've chosen to publish your own genome but I bet you'd feel a little different if someone else had published it without your consent.

mcculley 5y ago
ghaff 5y ago
In private? Mostly not. But with some exceptions (basically for marketing or advertising purposes--unless it's allowed by the Ts & Cs of some event which is common) any photo taken in public (basically outside your home) is fair game. ADDED: For those disagreeing: In general, I'll generally respect your wishes if you don't want your photo taken. But (in the US) if you're in a public place, you have no legal recourse (outside of some specific commercial uses). And that's how things are and will continue to be.
- tremon 5y ago
  https://www.longmores.law/articles/data-protection-issues-for-photographers/ https://www.longmores.law/articles/data-protection-issues-fo... (2014)
  - ghaff 5y ago
    First of all, that's the UK. Secondly, there is a lot of hand waving on that page. The bottom line is that if I take a picture of you in a public space like a park and publish it without a misleading caption on my blog, you have no real recourse (although the reality is that if it was just there for no particular purpose and you asked me to take it down after the fact I probably would).

inglor_cz 5y ago

For now. But 20 years down the line, it may be possible to create personalized poisons etc. And you cannot change your DNA like you can your password. That said, I am not sure how this can be prevented either. We leave traces of our DNA everywhere.

machiaweliczny 5y ago
Yeah but it's little different when they have to target you and different' when someone on the internet can remotely kill you by programming a (biological) virus.
ThePowerOfDirge 5y ago
A super-inefficient personalized poison.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  How do you know that? For some people, a tiny amount of peanuts is deadly. The rest of us can gorge on them without any ill effects whatsoever. Perhaps there many other such substances that cause a runaway reaction in a tiny minority of people. We do not know.

ajxs 5y ago

> DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway. This same argument be made to justify any erosion of personal privacy. With the level of technical sophistication western society has now, just about any invasion of privacy is too cheap to meter. Take IoT for instance. Just because it's possible for large corporations to infringe upon the privacy of individuals for pennies doesn't mean that we should just go ahead and accept it.

mcculley 5y ago
It does not matter how we feel about it. Every license plate scanner, every Ring doorbell, every security camera I walk by is potentially selling data.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  It does, if people actually cared they'd be rioting in the streets, maybe burn down some corporate headquarters
  - mcculley 5y ago
    Would burning down a building make it illegal to sell photos taken in public places?
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Well getting millions of people out to protest should, otherwise do we have a democracy? Bruning down building is more of a bug than a feature.
  - cute_boi 5y ago
    People do care about privacy. But, they don't have any power. Many people have to go to work, and they don't have time to fiddle in rioting etc. And, there is high chance that these people will be called terrorist for rioting such things. In fact some will even claim they are destroying property, and they should be incarcerated. And, there can be cases like rats in the group are taking advantage of protest. We can see this with BLM where few people deceived entire world by committing shenanigans in name of doing deeds. Also, if people riot, there is no way to be sure that a positive thing will happen. We can clearly see this from Arab Spring. Many people thought there would be liberation, but what we got in return? Dictators got removed, just to be replaced by another dictator. In fact, it backfired and now autocrats have more power than past. Those days are gone where we ended horrific things like slavery and liberated the world with democracy. We have become too greedy with the capitalist society, as indicated by covid scenario. Sorry, for digressing.

gmadsen 5y ago

drug test? how about dna markers that say you are likely to have a drug problem?

mcculley 5y ago
My 23andMe results show that I have the rs2472297 marker associated with slightly increased caffeine consumption. I also have the Irish ancestry associated with alcoholism that has been a problem in my family. I still consider my current diagnostic health test results to be more "sensitive" than the personal data I inherited and have no control over.
- gmadsen 5y ago
  fyi, 23andme decodes less than 1% of your genome. Full decoding is getting cheaper every year. New genetic papers come out every week. Even if you think it isn't that big of a deal at the moment, who knows what will be able to be inferred from a full genome in 10 years from now.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    I realize that. I don’t think my stance will change. The DNA I was born with is less important and sensitive to me than my decisions and outcomes.

vaylian 5y ago

> DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway. That still doesn't imply that DNA will be shared freely. On the contrary, it is important that we ensure that people retain control over their own genetic information.

mcculley 5y ago
How do you propose that people “retain control”? We leave copies of our DNA everywhere. Even if I were very careful, my relatives and potential descendants can leak enough information to piece my DNA together.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

> "DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway" Filming porn is going to be so cheap it's going to happen to everyone anyway

mcculley 5y ago
I think of this every time someone tells me they used AirBnB.

raxxorrax 5y ago

You can still legislate access pretty easily. Cameras are ubiquitous and you still are not allowed to take pictures of anyone in any situation.

mcculley 5y ago
Please elaborate. I do not understand what you mean about the photos and I do not see how legislation would be easy where there is free speech combined with free markets.

iypx 5y ago

Imagine you're 38 years old, you go like a normal person to a normal persons job interview. Now your new employer obviously doesn't have access to your DNA, but he has an active subscription to "NaturalCheck(tm)whatever" which does have access to most people's DNAs. Sorry, we can't hire you, your NaturalCheck came back as red. You call NaturalCheck, after getting tossed through 2-3 support staff you finally learn your dna has some markers for some kind of cancer. Welcome to a new world. P.S. If you think this is unrealistic: Credit check? Credit score? I see people have no problem with this stuff...

mcculley 5y ago
"Under Title II of GINA, it is illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information." (https://www.eeoc.gov/genetic-information-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/genetic-information-discrimination) Potential employers also have photos of me that indicate my skin color. We have laws against discrimination over some attributes.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  That's what "poor culture fit" is for. Technically illegal and enforcably illegal are not the same. People with pregnancies or disabilities get fired all the time; as long as they're not putting "we're firing you for getting prengant" in writing somewhere, chances are they get away with it.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    That criminals can commit crimes does not change the fact that this personal data will be easily found. I am still unconvinced that it is the most "sensitive" personal data.
- cute_boi 5y ago
  Over speeding is also illegal. Yet, we see a lot of people committing it. Same here, they will say they care about equal rights, but in reality they oust pregnant ladies, old peoples etc..

jmcgready 5y ago

> In the article there is a quote, “There is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA.“ > This seems a bogus assertion to me. I can imagine many diagnostic health test results that would be more sensitive to leak than DNA (e.g., STD and drug tests). > DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway. > Having published my own results (https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/ https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/), I really don’t buy into the idea that DNA is the most personal data that can be leaked. > (Nevertheless, there should be more obvious warnings to customers about how their data will be monetized.) > In the article there is a quote, “There is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA.“ > This seems a bogus assertion to me. I can imagine many diagnostic health test results that would be more sensitive to leak than DNA (e.g., STD and drug tests). It's still PHI, and in this case subject to at least the Data Protection Act. The walk-in centers at Gatwick and Heathrow may have tested non-UK citizens. If so, they may run into compliance issues with GDPR or other privacy regs. Not sure how that plays out. Guess I'll have to wait for the investigation results.... > Having published my own results (https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/ https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/), I really don’t buy into the idea that DNA is the most personal data that can be leaked. Being as (at least in the US) DNA is used as evidence to conclusively identify (or exclude) those accused of crime (i.e. rape kits, etc) I'd say that a court of law would consider it to be essentially personal info.

mcculley 5y ago
I agree it is "personal data". I disagree that it is "more sensitive" than other data.
- peteradio 5y ago
  When Edgar Sengier amassed Shinkolobwe Uranium prior to the Manhattan project, was the sensitivity less because the bomb did not yet exist?
  - mcculley 5y ago
    I agree that value is added merely by aggregation. Nevertheless, my diagnostic health test results are more sensitive to me than my DNA is. I imagine this is so for the vast majority.

sascha_sl 5y ago

As always, it'll probably not affect most people, but some people will have very interesting markers/indicators on their DNA that might be worth protecting more than an STD or drug test.