3 ms·

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 th

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.
- 6177c40f 3y ago
  > Can you give an example? See my other comment, but in short I essentially mean the true realization of "precision medicine" and gaining a greater understanding of how different genotypes result in disease, information which can be used guide treatment and to develop better treatments. > That assumes there's someone out to get you specifically. Not entirely true- the ability to reconstruct genotypes from environmental samples gets better all the time. I'd imagine that even with current technology, a sufficiently motivated organization could sample various locations to reconstruct the genomes of people who often visit there. With enough info, they could start building webs of genetic relation. From there, all they'd need is access to a database of samples from known individuals (which, as we can see, already exists), can chances are they could quickly deanonymize future samples. The only thing that could stop such mass collection is proper regulation. > 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. Unlike your password, your DNA is unencrypted and gets spread everywhere.
  - slingnow 3y ago
    >> 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. > Unlike your password, your DNA is unencrypted and gets spread everywhere. This doesn't address the point. In both cases, someone sufficiently motivated could get what they want from you. So by your argument, there's no point in maintaining privacy for either piece of information (DNA / passwords).
croes 3y ago
>Plus, anyone sufficiently motivated could get your DNA somehow, you shed your DNA everywhere you go, no getting around that. But these people need to get close to you. 23andme made it easy for someone who could have been on the other side of the globe.
- 6177c40f 3y ago
  I really don't see how this changes the threat model. If anything, I'm less worried about someone on the other side of the globe.
- fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
  And do what with it?

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.

6177c40f 3y ago
> Can you give an example? See my other comment, but in short I essentially mean the true realization of "precision medicine" and gaining a greater understanding of how different genotypes result in disease, information which can be used guide treatment and to develop better treatments. > That assumes there's someone out to get you specifically. Not entirely true- the ability to reconstruct genotypes from environmental samples gets better all the time. I'd imagine that even with current technology, a sufficiently motivated organization could sample various locations to reconstruct the genomes of people who often visit there. With enough info, they could start building webs of genetic relation. From there, all they'd need is access to a database of samples from known individuals (which, as we can see, already exists), can chances are they could quickly deanonymize future samples. The only thing that could stop such mass collection is proper regulation. > 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. Unlike your password, your DNA is unencrypted and gets spread everywhere.
- slingnow 3y ago
  >> 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. > Unlike your password, your DNA is unencrypted and gets spread everywhere. This doesn't address the point. In both cases, someone sufficiently motivated could get what they want from you. So by your argument, there's no point in maintaining privacy for either piece of information (DNA / passwords).

croes 3y ago

>Plus, anyone sufficiently motivated could get your DNA somehow, you shed your DNA everywhere you go, no getting around that. But these people need to get close to you. 23andme made it easy for someone who could have been on the other side of the globe.

6177c40f 3y ago
I really don't see how this changes the threat model. If anything, I'm less worried about someone on the other side of the globe.
fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
And do what with it?