I don't recognize the legitimacy of that concern. It's a two-way street and ultimately a wash on a personal level. If you demand that I seek permission I've now

I don't recognize the legitimacy of that concern. It's a two-way street and ultimately a wash on a personal level. If you demand that I seek permission I've now also lost bodily autonomy, while at the same time unfathomably increasing the cost of any sort of genetic research. It's a recipe for scientific and medical paralysis where everybody will almost surely lose. I view it much like abortion. Does a fetus have any recognizable interests? Perhaps. But nature makes it impracticable to give both mother and fetus bodily autonomy unless society changes the balance of power. While many societies will choose to limit abortion, I frankly find it extremely unlikely that any will choose to give relatives--even close relatives--a veto power over another's genetic disclosure. At a societal level the costs are clear and the resolution of the dilemma of incidental genetic disclosure becomes a non-issue. Rather, IMO the concern about relatives is just a rationalization for doing nothing while entertaining excessive anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-government paranoia. Moreover, if someone can provide any concrete negative externalities (i.e. beyond the freedom to be paranoid and indignant), societies can address them in particular, much like they did by prohibiting exploitation of genetic data for health insurance, employment, etc.