7 ms·

Thanks for sharing. Will def opt out and roll into the class action suits already filed. Take security seriously people. Especially when dealing with super sen

Thanks for sharing. Will def opt out and roll into the class action suits already filed. Take security seriously people. Especially when dealing with super sensitive data.

brianwawok 3y ago
Why did you send them your DNA? It was pretty obvious from day 1 that sending some random startup on the internet my DNA was a bad move.
- mauvehaus 3y ago
  Not everyone opted in as such. My wife has an identical twin who sent in a test.
  - midasuni 3y ago
    Presumably neither you, your kids, or your wife, has grounds to sue them
    - hoosieree 3y ago
      You could try the old Monsanto/JohnDeere approach: copyright your own DNA then sue them under DMCA.
- 6177c40f 3y ago
  No, I don't think that that's obvious. At least in the US, there are already protections for genetic information (including but not limited to GINA [1]). In the long run, I think keeping your genetic information private will be untenable- the potential benefits will outweigh the drawbacks. Plus, anyone sufficiently motivated could get your DNA somehow, you shed your DNA everywhere you go, no getting around that. So what's left is to urge your representatives to maintain and strengthen regulations on how that information can be used, and in the long run we'll just have to trust that that will be enough. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim...
  - quantified 3y ago
    What benefit will there be? And why do you assume that it won't be accompanied by negatives? The problem with all tech is that people direct its use, and the sole agent of evil in this world is people.
    - 6177c40f 3y ago
      > What benefit will there be? Knowing your genetic information is currently of limited value for the majority of people, this I admit. I believe that in the future, however, the promise of precision medicine will be realized, and that having one's genetic information readily available will be crucial to receiving the best treatment possible for many diseases. For example, take Crohn's Disease (and other inflammatory diseases more generally). The current thinking is that it is highly influenced by genetics, and that a number of different genotypes exist that can result in the phenotype we refer to as Crohn's Disease. It's conceivable that having a better understanding of someone's specific genotype could lead to more precise treatment of their condition. > And why do you assume that it won't be accompanied by negatives? I explicitly don't assume this, I said that the benefits will outweigh the drawbacks. > the sole agent of evil in this world is people. This is a specious argument. By that same measure, the sole agent of good in the world is also people. But that's irrelevant. Tech can be used both to harm and to benefit, and I'm arguing that personal gene sequencing can and will be used to provide more benefit than harm.
      - quantified 3y ago
        Yes, you did reference both, and I lost track in my response. I expect a few relatively wealthy people to get some benefit, for example when they have real health conditions that can be helped by genetic knowledge. I don't expect benefit for the rest. Across the population, some will have net benefit, some will have net drawback, and it would be very easy for the second group to be an order of magnitude larger than the first.
  - pavel_lishin 3y ago
    > In the long run, I think keeping your genetic information private will be untenable- the potential benefits will outweigh the drawbacks. Can you give an example? > Plus, anyone sufficiently motivated could get your DNA somehow, you shed your DNA everywhere you go, no getting around that. That assumes there's someone out to get you specifically. That's like saying there's no point in having 2FA or strong passwords, because the FSB, the FBI and Mossad can get in anyway. Having my DNA because you vacuumed it up off the subway floor is significantly less useful to anyone without it being explicitly tied to me.
- gosub100 3y ago
  Fear of the unknown about your own body. Think of how many people would sign up if you sold a service that scoured secret files to "find out what people are saying about you". Forget whether such a service could ever work, just the combination of "unknown" + "about you" is irresistible to a large segment of the population. It's the mother-of-all-clickbait.
- atemerev 3y ago
  Any other way to know the information they are offering? It is hard to own your own sequencing machine.
- duxup 3y ago
  For a lot of people it is a health decision. I go to a doctor, they have a ton of info on me. Who knows what might happen with that data ... but I still go to the doctor because it is a good idea for health reasons.
- tamimio 3y ago
  Spot on!
- alephnan 3y ago
  It was offered as a subsidized perk during my days as a Google employee. The social aspect of other people at Google doing it made it feel normal. In hindsight, I drank the Google kool-aid in more ways then one. The sentiment of distrust towards tech companies and tech companies being yet-another-corporation is really only obvious in recent years. It wasn't the case a decade ago when we were busy being judgemental of Wall Street. Ironically, now it seems that Wall Street is more trustworthy because, at the very least, they are forthrite about their motive to make profit instead of all these lies about "changing the world".
- krosaen 3y ago
  Didn't really feel like a random startup - felt like one of the most innovative startups around, backed by impressive investors including Google, co-founder married to Sergey Brin... So perhaps in hindsight sending DNA to anyone is a bad idea, but if there were a startup one might have trusted, this was it.
snapcaster 3y ago
[flagged]
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  Most of the time we're leaking our DNA all over the place by existing
  - eimrine 3y ago
    The DNA we are leaking is impossible to copy unlike the DNA we are sending to 23andme.
    - atemerev 3y ago
      You know, you can send other peoples DNA to sequencing services too…
      - eimrine 3y ago
        Probably you can send to them anything else but how it relates to my comment?
        atemerev 3y ago
        Meaning that your DNA is not safe, even if you yourself never send it. DNA is leaking everywhere, anyone could collect it and send for analysis.
    - micromacrofoot 3y ago
      Nanpore sequencing can be done with a device that can fit into your pocket, these devices can be found for less than $1000.
    - boringuser2 3y ago
      Why do you care again? It's DNA, not your BitWarden password.
micromacrofoot 3y ago
Same, excited to receive my check for $0.25 in 3 years (seriously though, I wonder if we should file in small claims court or something as well?)
tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago
Which super sensitive data was leaked? I have read contradicting things.

Thanks for sharing. Will def opt out and roll into the class action suits already filed. Take security seriously people. Especially when dealing with super sensitive data.

brianwawok 3y ago

Why did you send them your DNA? It was pretty obvious from day 1 that sending some random startup on the internet my DNA was a bad move.

mauvehaus 3y ago
Not everyone opted in as such. My wife has an identical twin who sent in a test.
- midasuni 3y ago
  Presumably neither you, your kids, or your wife, has grounds to sue them
  - hoosieree 3y ago
    You could try the old Monsanto/JohnDeere approach: copyright your own DNA then sue them under DMCA.
6177c40f 3y ago
No, I don't think that that's obvious. At least in the US, there are already protections for genetic information (including but not limited to GINA [1]). In the long run, I think keeping your genetic information private will be untenable- the potential benefits will outweigh the drawbacks. Plus, anyone sufficiently motivated could get your DNA somehow, you shed your DNA everywhere you go, no getting around that. So what's left is to urge your representatives to maintain and strengthen regulations on how that information can be used, and in the long run we'll just have to trust that that will be enough. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim...
- quantified 3y ago
  What benefit will there be? And why do you assume that it won't be accompanied by negatives? The problem with all tech is that people direct its use, and the sole agent of evil in this world is people.
  - 6177c40f 3y ago
    > What benefit will there be? Knowing your genetic information is currently of limited value for the majority of people, this I admit. I believe that in the future, however, the promise of precision medicine will be realized, and that having one's genetic information readily available will be crucial to receiving the best treatment possible for many diseases. For example, take Crohn's Disease (and other inflammatory diseases more generally). The current thinking is that it is highly influenced by genetics, and that a number of different genotypes exist that can result in the phenotype we refer to as Crohn's Disease. It's conceivable that having a better understanding of someone's specific genotype could lead to more precise treatment of their condition. > And why do you assume that it won't be accompanied by negatives? I explicitly don't assume this, I said that the benefits will outweigh the drawbacks. > the sole agent of evil in this world is people. This is a specious argument. By that same measure, the sole agent of good in the world is also people. But that's irrelevant. Tech can be used both to harm and to benefit, and I'm arguing that personal gene sequencing can and will be used to provide more benefit than harm.
    - quantified 3y ago
      Yes, you did reference both, and I lost track in my response. I expect a few relatively wealthy people to get some benefit, for example when they have real health conditions that can be helped by genetic knowledge. I don't expect benefit for the rest. Across the population, some will have net benefit, some will have net drawback, and it would be very easy for the second group to be an order of magnitude larger than the first.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  > In the long run, I think keeping your genetic information private will be untenable- the potential benefits will outweigh the drawbacks. Can you give an example? > Plus, anyone sufficiently motivated could get your DNA somehow, you shed your DNA everywhere you go, no getting around that. That assumes there's someone out to get you specifically. That's like saying there's no point in having 2FA or strong passwords, because the FSB, the FBI and Mossad can get in anyway. Having my DNA because you vacuumed it up off the subway floor is significantly less useful to anyone without it being explicitly tied to me.
gosub100 3y ago
Fear of the unknown about your own body. Think of how many people would sign up if you sold a service that scoured secret files to "find out what people are saying about you". Forget whether such a service could ever work, just the combination of "unknown" + "about you" is irresistible to a large segment of the population. It's the mother-of-all-clickbait.
atemerev 3y ago
Any other way to know the information they are offering? It is hard to own your own sequencing machine.
duxup 3y ago
For a lot of people it is a health decision. I go to a doctor, they have a ton of info on me. Who knows what might happen with that data ... but I still go to the doctor because it is a good idea for health reasons.
tamimio 3y ago
Spot on!
alephnan 3y ago
It was offered as a subsidized perk during my days as a Google employee. The social aspect of other people at Google doing it made it feel normal. In hindsight, I drank the Google kool-aid in more ways then one. The sentiment of distrust towards tech companies and tech companies being yet-another-corporation is really only obvious in recent years. It wasn't the case a decade ago when we were busy being judgemental of Wall Street. Ironically, now it seems that Wall Street is more trustworthy because, at the very least, they are forthrite about their motive to make profit instead of all these lies about "changing the world".
krosaen 3y ago
Didn't really feel like a random startup - felt like one of the most innovative startups around, backed by impressive investors including Google, co-founder married to Sergey Brin... So perhaps in hindsight sending DNA to anyone is a bad idea, but if there were a startup one might have trusted, this was it.

snapcaster 3y ago

[flagged]

micromacrofoot 3y ago
Most of the time we're leaking our DNA all over the place by existing
- eimrine 3y ago
  The DNA we are leaking is impossible to copy unlike the DNA we are sending to 23andme.
  - atemerev 3y ago
    You know, you can send other peoples DNA to sequencing services too…
    - eimrine 3y ago
      Probably you can send to them anything else but how it relates to my comment?
      - atemerev 3y ago
        Meaning that your DNA is not safe, even if you yourself never send it. DNA is leaking everywhere, anyone could collect it and send for analysis.
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    Nanpore sequencing can be done with a device that can fit into your pocket, these devices can be found for less than $1000.
  - boringuser2 3y ago
    Why do you care again? It's DNA, not your BitWarden password.

micromacrofoot 3y ago

Same, excited to receive my check for $0.25 in 3 years (seriously though, I wonder if we should file in small claims court or something as well?)

tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago

Which super sensitive data was leaked? I have read contradicting things.