4 ms·

This is a clickbait title with a plagiarized article from Propublica. Propublica makes mention of the fact that this never got off the ground: > “Despite effor

by amf12 4y ago

This is a clickbait title with a plagiarized article from Propublica. Propublica makes mention of the fact that this never got off the ground: > “Despite efforts from Google and many at the Department of Defense, our work with JPC unfortunately never got off the ground” Second, I don't see any harm in sharing public data (anonymized of course) with any private or public research organizations. Isn't advancement in medicine good? Are these negative reactions only because its Google? I'd have a problem if Google said that only they can have this data or something nefarious, but there is nothing in the original article to suggest that.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>Second, I don't see any harm in sharing public data (anonymized of course) with any private or public research organizations. Your DNA isn't "public data". Further, those in the military didn't have a choice in the DNA collection. Anyone who chooses to give their DNA to Google, or anyone else, should be free to do so. Nobody's DNA should be harvested and given to a private corporation, no matter what the purported purpose.
- dekhn 4y ago
  The military members consented to this when they joined (along with mandatory vaccinations and many other things) voluntarily. DNA is public data (you're shedding it everywhere) although in many research situations, many pseudonymous genomes are available. Heck, there are even ones tied to individuals; for example, https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/hu80855C https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/hu80855C That's my genome. Google paid for it to be sequenced. I'm David Konerding. Have fun with it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - thewebcount 4y ago
    > The military members consented to this when they joined Did they clarify what time period the DNA covers? We’re all military subjects able to give reasonable consent? If it includes samples from before ~1953, did they even know the significance of what DNA was or how it could be used? > voluntarily I have uncles who served in the military via conscription in the Korean and Vietnamese wars. Is their DNA included? It certainly wasn’t voluntary.
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    "The military members consented to this when they joined..." Even if they did, I'll bet they didn't anticipate the raiding of their DNA and medical records by a pariah corporation. Moreover, I'd lay money that many in the military would strongly object to such collection. If the military were to go ahead with this then it deserves to lose recruiting numbers. — Edit: re your DNA. It's fine if you make a conscious clearheaded decision to put your DNA on line. The fact is that many people will have an absolutely antithetical view about this to you and their views must be respected. Problems arise when people like you who really don't care about privacy are put in charge of making decisions for those who do care. This is not a criticism of you per se but those handling personal data on behalf of others are less likely to value it to the same extent as the owners of said data. That's why rules should be set up at the outset and they must be inviolate. A final point, even though you have put your DNA on line you should do so anonymously as your DNA is a link to your relatives and it's highly likely that some of them will have antithetical views to you about the matter—you need to respect their privacy and wishes.
- inetknght 4y ago
  Full disclosure: I worked 6 years for a private DNA analysis company. I left the company over two years ago in pursuit of challenges closer to my passions -- robotics. > Your DNA isn't "public data". You shed DNA every day in dead skin cells; if you're in public then it's effectively public trash and most public trash is... well... public. If you eat or drink at a restaurant then you've left your DNA on the utensils and cups. Even beyond that: Are you sure your relatives haven't given their DNA? It is possible to reconstruct your DNA using the DNA of your relatives. > Nobody's DNA should be harvested and given to a private corporation, no matter what the purported purpose. This much I fully agree on. Private businesses should have no business in DNA analysis. Private businesses aren't beholden to nearly as much public scrutiny. Unfortunately, DNA analysis is (or, was when I left) a growing private business.
  - defrost 4y ago
    To clarify an important point glossed over and ignored here: This isn't just "public DNA" shed anonymously drifting about in the wind . . . This is the conjunction of two sets - "public DNA" AND the identity and detailed health record of the body that DNA came from. A bucket of "public DNA" is interesting, sure, if you're into that - but it becomes a whole lot more when classified by (say) those that contracted cancer Vs those that didn't - particularly when combined with environmental factors, etc.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - fwip 4y ago
    You shed DNA, sure, but that doesn't make it public data. If tomorrow we invented a tool to read your thoughts based on the electromagnetic waves your brain emits, that doesn't suddenly make your thoughts public data.
- hilbert42 4y ago
  "Your DNA isn't "public data". Further, those in the military didn't have a choice in the DNA collection." Fucking right! Google has an unmitigated hide to even contemplate such collection. The 'no' in Google's 'do no evil' disappeared long ago. Google's behavior in recent years is really beyond the pale, it's acting like a metastasizing cancer in everything it touches. It's high time governments brought it to heel. You're absolutely right, DNA shouldn't be harvested by any private irrespective of purpose.
ProAm 4y ago
> Second, I don't see any harm in sharing public data .... Are these negative reactions only because its Google? 100% I do not trust Google to do remotely the right thing that is in the interest of anyone but themselves. These people served their country for the government to give that data to a private company for profit? Google can talk all they want about doing it for good, zero trust in them to actually to anything remotely close to that. And as we've seen with Google in the past, what they say they will do today does not mean that standard will still apply tomorrow.

by amf12 4y ago

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

>Second, I don't see any harm in sharing public data (anonymized of course) with any private or public research organizations. Your DNA isn't "public data". Further, those in the military didn't have a choice in the DNA collection. Anyone who chooses to give their DNA to Google, or anyone else, should be free to do so. Nobody's DNA should be harvested and given to a private corporation, no matter what the purported purpose.

dekhn 4y ago
The military members consented to this when they joined (along with mandatory vaccinations and many other things) voluntarily. DNA is public data (you're shedding it everywhere) although in many research situations, many pseudonymous genomes are available. Heck, there are even ones tied to individuals; for example, https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/hu80855C https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/hu80855C That's my genome. Google paid for it to be sequenced. I'm David Konerding. Have fun with it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thewebcount 4y ago
  > The military members consented to this when they joined Did they clarify what time period the DNA covers? We’re all military subjects able to give reasonable consent? If it includes samples from before ~1953, did they even know the significance of what DNA was or how it could be used? > voluntarily I have uncles who served in the military via conscription in the Korean and Vietnamese wars. Is their DNA included? It certainly wasn’t voluntary.
- hilbert42 4y ago
  "The military members consented to this when they joined..." Even if they did, I'll bet they didn't anticipate the raiding of their DNA and medical records by a pariah corporation. Moreover, I'd lay money that many in the military would strongly object to such collection. If the military were to go ahead with this then it deserves to lose recruiting numbers. — Edit: re your DNA. It's fine if you make a conscious clearheaded decision to put your DNA on line. The fact is that many people will have an absolutely antithetical view about this to you and their views must be respected. Problems arise when people like you who really don't care about privacy are put in charge of making decisions for those who do care. This is not a criticism of you per se but those handling personal data on behalf of others are less likely to value it to the same extent as the owners of said data. That's why rules should be set up at the outset and they must be inviolate. A final point, even though you have put your DNA on line you should do so anonymously as your DNA is a link to your relatives and it's highly likely that some of them will have antithetical views to you about the matter—you need to respect their privacy and wishes.
inetknght 4y ago
Full disclosure: I worked 6 years for a private DNA analysis company. I left the company over two years ago in pursuit of challenges closer to my passions -- robotics. > Your DNA isn't "public data". You shed DNA every day in dead skin cells; if you're in public then it's effectively public trash and most public trash is... well... public. If you eat or drink at a restaurant then you've left your DNA on the utensils and cups. Even beyond that: Are you sure your relatives haven't given their DNA? It is possible to reconstruct your DNA using the DNA of your relatives. > Nobody's DNA should be harvested and given to a private corporation, no matter what the purported purpose. This much I fully agree on. Private businesses should have no business in DNA analysis. Private businesses aren't beholden to nearly as much public scrutiny. Unfortunately, DNA analysis is (or, was when I left) a growing private business.
- defrost 4y ago
  To clarify an important point glossed over and ignored here: This isn't just "public DNA" shed anonymously drifting about in the wind . . . This is the conjunction of two sets - "public DNA" AND the identity and detailed health record of the body that DNA came from. A bucket of "public DNA" is interesting, sure, if you're into that - but it becomes a whole lot more when classified by (say) those that contracted cancer Vs those that didn't - particularly when combined with environmental factors, etc.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- fwip 4y ago
  You shed DNA, sure, but that doesn't make it public data. If tomorrow we invented a tool to read your thoughts based on the electromagnetic waves your brain emits, that doesn't suddenly make your thoughts public data.
hilbert42 4y ago
"Your DNA isn't "public data". Further, those in the military didn't have a choice in the DNA collection." Fucking right! Google has an unmitigated hide to even contemplate such collection. The 'no' in Google's 'do no evil' disappeared long ago. Google's behavior in recent years is really beyond the pale, it's acting like a metastasizing cancer in everything it touches. It's high time governments brought it to heel. You're absolutely right, DNA shouldn't be harvested by any private irrespective of purpose.

ProAm 4y ago

> Second, I don't see any harm in sharing public data .... Are these negative reactions only because its Google? 100% I do not trust Google to do remotely the right thing that is in the interest of anyone but themselves. These people served their country for the government to give that data to a private company for profit? Google can talk all they want about doing it for good, zero trust in them to actually to anything remotely close to that. And as we've seen with Google in the past, what they say they will do today does not mean that standard will still apply tomorrow.