5 ms·

I'm a genealogist. I discourage everyone I can from uploading their DNA. For DNA to be secure, there doesn't just need to be firm walls, they can't ever be bre

I'm a genealogist. I discourage everyone I can from uploading their DNA. For DNA to be secure, there doesn't just need to be firm walls, they can't ever be breached for a moment - not now or a generation from now. Holders of DNA can't be bought out or come under the control of leadership that doesn't fully grasp and exercise privacy safeguards. They can't allow laws to be bought or leveraged that will compromise their ability to safeguard it. LEO's use of DNA is a surveillance method and powerful interests will always feel compelled to use it to hunt people they perceive are enemies. Whatever info we may get by uploading it can't possibly be worth the risk to our descendants and relations.

andersrs 3y ago
There is always that one asshole in your family that thinks they're clever by uploading their DNA to one of the ancestry services. By doing that they've leaked a fair bit of information about their relatives who never consented.
- 14 3y ago
  I have a dumb brother who I won’t talk to decides to be a shitty career criminal. They took his dna so I’m in the same boat as family uploading it. Not that I am worried about it being used for a crime but I worry in future people will be discriminated on by dna. Life insurance could be more expensive if they know you have a slight chance of x disease for examples.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    If you have a higher chance of getting a disease, why wouldn't life insurance be more expensive? Life insurance will also be cheaper if you don't have that chance. The point of insurance is to spread random risk around. Nobody complains that young women have cheaper car insurance than young men, or that young people have more expensive car insurance than older people, but cheaper health insurance. Young men are more likely to have car accidents, but less likely to have cancer. The point of insurance is not wealth redistribution or the spreading of systemic risk, but the spreading of random risk. (I mean this in the sense of 'systemic error' vs 'random error' that you will remember from high school physics.)
    - chmod775 3y ago
      This directly leads to discrimination against disabled people among other groups. For instance wheelchair bound people have a much lower average live expectancy. The lives of people who are (born) disabled or have some debilitating genetic disease don't need society to make their lives even harder. > If you have a higher chance of getting a disease, why wouldn't life insurance be more expensive? The answer to that is: Not spreading such risks evenly among everyone is morally reprehensible. Imagine your reward for living in constant pain and having a higher chance of dying early is society kicking you in the balls for the crime of being born like that.
      - wlesieutre 3y ago
        My car insurance company knows I have a Y-chromosome and charges me extra for it. Seems to be a universal practice at least in the US.
        StanislavPetrov 3y ago
        A lot of discriminatory practices exist in the US. We should strive to eliminate them, not expand them.
        memefrog 3y ago
        No, we should not 'strive to eliminate' them. The entire point of insurance is that it is based on risk assessments that are as accurate as possible, using all the information that is available. It is not a wealth redistribution mechanism, but a randomness redistribution system. If you know that you have an illness, and don't tell your insurance company, then you're a fraudster. If you know you have a genetic predisposition to illness, that's no different. Discrimination is not inherently a bad thing. There are specific lists of special reasons, and discrimination on those bases is considered bad and has widely been made unlawful. Usually, insurance is an exception! And it should be. I don't see why men should subsidise the health insurance of women or why women should subsidise the car insurance of men. I don't see why the young should subsidise the health insurance of the old. That's not the point of insurance.
  - skinner927 3y ago
    Sorry, you can’t get health insurance because you have a pre-existing condition from 13 generations ago.
- greedylizard 3y ago
  Why is this being downvoted? Is it not true? From what I’ve seen, this comment is accurate. Genuinely asking…
  - dunefox 3y ago
    Because the companies and subsequent parties are the assholes in this case.
- alexfromapex 3y ago
  They’re not an asshole the companies are for letting the government search the data without a warrant. This kind of data collection and abuse without informed consent can easily spread and probably already has with modalities like facial recognition and needs to be banned.
  - StanislavPetrov 3y ago
    >They’re not an asshole the companies are for letting the government search the data without a warrant. In my opinion trusting anyone with your DNA makes you an asshole. The possibility of a leak, hack, misuse or government search (consensual or non-consensual) approaches 100% very rapidly over time.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >In my opinion trusting anyone with your DNA makes you an asshole It's not like they can't get your DNA in several ways without you volunteering it... Or that they need your DNA to get to things about you, unless you're living incognito or something...
      - slikrick 3y ago
        "it's not like they can't murder you other ways, why are you worried about them owning guns and patrolling out your house?"
        coldtea 3y ago
        More like "you have no alarm, no guard dog, no fence, and your doors and windows are always open, even when you're on vacations. Why are you worried about the spare keys you've sent to some key analysis service?"
cjbgkagh 3y ago
In my view DNA privacy is already defeated, enough people have already submitted that the intersection of distant relatives really narrows down who a given sample could be. When I submitted my own I had a long list of distant relatives on both sides come up and I suspect that is pretty typical for Europeans.

andersrs 3y ago

There is always that one asshole in your family that thinks they're clever by uploading their DNA to one of the ancestry services. By doing that they've leaked a fair bit of information about their relatives who never consented.

14 3y ago
I have a dumb brother who I won’t talk to decides to be a shitty career criminal. They took his dna so I’m in the same boat as family uploading it. Not that I am worried about it being used for a crime but I worry in future people will be discriminated on by dna. Life insurance could be more expensive if they know you have a slight chance of x disease for examples.
- memefrog 3y ago
  If you have a higher chance of getting a disease, why wouldn't life insurance be more expensive? Life insurance will also be cheaper if you don't have that chance. The point of insurance is to spread random risk around. Nobody complains that young women have cheaper car insurance than young men, or that young people have more expensive car insurance than older people, but cheaper health insurance. Young men are more likely to have car accidents, but less likely to have cancer. The point of insurance is not wealth redistribution or the spreading of systemic risk, but the spreading of random risk. (I mean this in the sense of 'systemic error' vs 'random error' that you will remember from high school physics.)
  - chmod775 3y ago
    This directly leads to discrimination against disabled people among other groups. For instance wheelchair bound people have a much lower average live expectancy. The lives of people who are (born) disabled or have some debilitating genetic disease don't need society to make their lives even harder. > If you have a higher chance of getting a disease, why wouldn't life insurance be more expensive? The answer to that is: Not spreading such risks evenly among everyone is morally reprehensible. Imagine your reward for living in constant pain and having a higher chance of dying early is society kicking you in the balls for the crime of being born like that.
    - wlesieutre 3y ago
      My car insurance company knows I have a Y-chromosome and charges me extra for it. Seems to be a universal practice at least in the US.
      - StanislavPetrov 3y ago
        A lot of discriminatory practices exist in the US. We should strive to eliminate them, not expand them.
        memefrog 3y ago
        No, we should not 'strive to eliminate' them. The entire point of insurance is that it is based on risk assessments that are as accurate as possible, using all the information that is available. It is not a wealth redistribution mechanism, but a randomness redistribution system. If you know that you have an illness, and don't tell your insurance company, then you're a fraudster. If you know you have a genetic predisposition to illness, that's no different. Discrimination is not inherently a bad thing. There are specific lists of special reasons, and discrimination on those bases is considered bad and has widely been made unlawful. Usually, insurance is an exception! And it should be. I don't see why men should subsidise the health insurance of women or why women should subsidise the car insurance of men. I don't see why the young should subsidise the health insurance of the old. That's not the point of insurance.
- skinner927 3y ago
  Sorry, you can’t get health insurance because you have a pre-existing condition from 13 generations ago.
greedylizard 3y ago
Why is this being downvoted? Is it not true? From what I’ve seen, this comment is accurate. Genuinely asking…
- dunefox 3y ago
  Because the companies and subsequent parties are the assholes in this case.
alexfromapex 3y ago
They’re not an asshole the companies are for letting the government search the data without a warrant. This kind of data collection and abuse without informed consent can easily spread and probably already has with modalities like facial recognition and needs to be banned.
- StanislavPetrov 3y ago
  >They’re not an asshole the companies are for letting the government search the data without a warrant. In my opinion trusting anyone with your DNA makes you an asshole. The possibility of a leak, hack, misuse or government search (consensual or non-consensual) approaches 100% very rapidly over time.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >In my opinion trusting anyone with your DNA makes you an asshole It's not like they can't get your DNA in several ways without you volunteering it... Or that they need your DNA to get to things about you, unless you're living incognito or something...
    - slikrick 3y ago
      "it's not like they can't murder you other ways, why are you worried about them owning guns and patrolling out your house?"
      - coldtea 3y ago
        More like "you have no alarm, no guard dog, no fence, and your doors and windows are always open, even when you're on vacations. Why are you worried about the spare keys you've sent to some key analysis service?"

cjbgkagh 3y ago

In my view DNA privacy is already defeated, enough people have already submitted that the intersection of distant relatives really narrows down who a given sample could be. When I submitted my own I had a long list of distant relatives on both sides come up and I suspect that is pretty typical for Europeans.