3 ms·

There is more or less nothing useful someone can do with your genetic information, and there's no way you can prevent anyone from having it, since you leave it

There is more or less nothing useful someone can do with your genetic information, and there's no way you can prevent anyone from having it, since you leave it everywhere you go.

Symmetry 3y ago
Knowing I'm a FUT2 non-secreter has actually been pretty useful to me a few times not having to worry about taking care of people in norovirus outbreaks.
makeitdouble 3y ago
This feels like the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument for DNA. It looks decent on the surface, but the more you dig in the more issues arise. Thinking about it for 30s: - profiling is a direct use of DNA. Police had access to private dna banks and used the information extensively. Who else is using these same dna banks ? - the same way people don't want AI farms to ingest their content, you might not want dna bases to ingest and process your dna for profit. You might actually eish a more ethical entity gets sole access to your information. - you don't leave your dna everywhere. Getting a full dna sequence from hair or fingerprints is a myth at this point.
bglazer 3y ago
It’s worth noting that the reason nothing “useful” can be done with genetic information in the United States is the Genetic information Nondiscrimination act of 2008. This prevents insurers from denying coverage or increasing premiums based on genetic information. It also prevents employers from making hiring or promotion decisions based on genetics. These are the most straightforward ways in which companies could profit off your genetic information. Basically denying insurance coverage or employment if they think you’re likely to get ill from a genetic disease. There’s also a much murkier aspect in which employers could try to guess your intelligence based on genetics. I’m absolutely certain employers would do try to do this despite it having virtually no utility.
- astrange 3y ago
  The main reason you can't be denied health insurance anymore is the preexisting conditions ban in the ACA. That's a much stronger signal than your SNPs. But most privacy complaints here come from the idea that an evil corporation is going to get specifically your genes, look at them, and then somehow invent a super profitable medicine from that. Which doesn't really make sense.
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    I have never heard that concern before ever, in all of my life, a not insignificant portion of which has been in privacy minded communities that care very much about genetic privacy. The major concerns are: 1. Government surveillance, so that the government can take a sample from anywhere you've ever been and tie you directly to that location, like having cops constantly monitoring a GPS tracker on you. The government does this now through long range scanning, and there's plenty of puff pieces about how it's used to find serial killers and rapists, not much written about the dangers of parallel construction and unethical surveillance of political opposition. Genetic privacy prevents these abuses. 2. Privatised eugenics programs. Insurers denying or granting coverage and employers hiring or firing based on genetics is part of it, but genetic screening as an input to embryo selection is also being done all the time by modern eugenicists, and I'm not talking about disease prevention. Some of these people want "charities" which attempt to sterilise as many people as they can who they consider to be undesirable, and if they had access to genetic data it would make that a lot easier. Genetic privacy prevents these abuses. I don't even know where you got the idea that genetic privacy advocates are worried that a company will look at their genes and make a really profitable drug out of that process somehow. Was this maybe a movie or videogame that you watched some time? Or misremembering/misinterpreting the real practice of pharmaceutical companies going into indigenous communities, using their knowledge of which plants and animals have medicinal properties, then patenting the medicines they only found based on that indigenous knowledge without any of the value from that transaction going to the people who actually discovered and relayed the information?

There is more or less nothing useful someone can do with your genetic information, and there's no way you can prevent anyone from having it, since you leave it everywhere you go.

Symmetry 3y ago

Knowing I'm a FUT2 non-secreter has actually been pretty useful to me a few times not having to worry about taking care of people in norovirus outbreaks.

makeitdouble 3y ago

This feels like the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument for DNA. It looks decent on the surface, but the more you dig in the more issues arise. Thinking about it for 30s: - profiling is a direct use of DNA. Police had access to private dna banks and used the information extensively. Who else is using these same dna banks ? - the same way people don't want AI farms to ingest their content, you might not want dna bases to ingest and process your dna for profit. You might actually eish a more ethical entity gets sole access to your information. - you don't leave your dna everywhere. Getting a full dna sequence from hair or fingerprints is a myth at this point.

bglazer 3y ago

It’s worth noting that the reason nothing “useful” can be done with genetic information in the United States is the Genetic information Nondiscrimination act of 2008. This prevents insurers from denying coverage or increasing premiums based on genetic information. It also prevents employers from making hiring or promotion decisions based on genetics. These are the most straightforward ways in which companies could profit off your genetic information. Basically denying insurance coverage or employment if they think you’re likely to get ill from a genetic disease. There’s also a much murkier aspect in which employers could try to guess your intelligence based on genetics. I’m absolutely certain employers would do try to do this despite it having virtually no utility.

astrange 3y ago
The main reason you can't be denied health insurance anymore is the preexisting conditions ban in the ACA. That's a much stronger signal than your SNPs. But most privacy complaints here come from the idea that an evil corporation is going to get specifically your genes, look at them, and then somehow invent a super profitable medicine from that. Which doesn't really make sense.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  I have never heard that concern before ever, in all of my life, a not insignificant portion of which has been in privacy minded communities that care very much about genetic privacy. The major concerns are: 1. Government surveillance, so that the government can take a sample from anywhere you've ever been and tie you directly to that location, like having cops constantly monitoring a GPS tracker on you. The government does this now through long range scanning, and there's plenty of puff pieces about how it's used to find serial killers and rapists, not much written about the dangers of parallel construction and unethical surveillance of political opposition. Genetic privacy prevents these abuses. 2. Privatised eugenics programs. Insurers denying or granting coverage and employers hiring or firing based on genetics is part of it, but genetic screening as an input to embryo selection is also being done all the time by modern eugenicists, and I'm not talking about disease prevention. Some of these people want "charities" which attempt to sterilise as many people as they can who they consider to be undesirable, and if they had access to genetic data it would make that a lot easier. Genetic privacy prevents these abuses. I don't even know where you got the idea that genetic privacy advocates are worried that a company will look at their genes and make a really profitable drug out of that process somehow. Was this maybe a movie or videogame that you watched some time? Or misremembering/misinterpreting the real practice of pharmaceutical companies going into indigenous communities, using their knowledge of which plants and animals have medicinal properties, then patenting the medicines they only found based on that indigenous knowledge without any of the value from that transaction going to the people who actually discovered and relayed the information?