3 ms·

>> 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 D

>> 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).

billyoyo 3y ago
Clearly a bad faith argument. someone with your passwords can do a lot more damage than someone with your DNA. I think DNA is probably sensitive on the level of someone knowing your name and DOB. Not convinced it's much more dangerous than that.
- rocho 3y ago
  That's only true now. You don't know that DNA leakage won't be a higher risk in the future (and FWIW, my opinion is the opposite of yours regarding the future risks). Moreover you can change your passwords, but you can't change your DNA.
6177c40f 3y ago
> So by your argument, there's no point in maintaining privacy for either piece of information (DNA / passwords). The problem with privacy is that it's fragile. When your info is leaked, you should assume it's out there for good. I also think that while right now when you do the cost/benefit analysis of having your DNA sequenced, you think the cost outweights the benefit. Clearly my personal calculus is different than yours, and that's ok. But I would caution you that in the future that calculation may be different for you. So I think people will either lose privacy, or voluntarily give up some privacy for some benefit. In either case, we will need something other than privacy to protect ourselves. I think that well-enforced legislation, legislation that limits the way genetic info can be used and gives the individual more control over their own info, is really the only thing that can help.
- muser8 3y ago
  > I think that well-enforced legislation, legislation that limits the way genetic info can be used and gives the individual more control over their own info, is really the only thing that can help. Absolutely, in theory. But when have politicians respected legislation's original intent over their self-interest over time, especially when monied parties are desirous of changes for those party's own ends?

billyoyo 3y ago

Clearly a bad faith argument. someone with your passwords can do a lot more damage than someone with your DNA. I think DNA is probably sensitive on the level of someone knowing your name and DOB. Not convinced it's much more dangerous than that.

rocho 3y ago
That's only true now. You don't know that DNA leakage won't be a higher risk in the future (and FWIW, my opinion is the opposite of yours regarding the future risks). Moreover you can change your passwords, but you can't change your DNA.

6177c40f 3y ago

> So by your argument, there's no point in maintaining privacy for either piece of information (DNA / passwords). The problem with privacy is that it's fragile. When your info is leaked, you should assume it's out there for good. I also think that while right now when you do the cost/benefit analysis of having your DNA sequenced, you think the cost outweights the benefit. Clearly my personal calculus is different than yours, and that's ok. But I would caution you that in the future that calculation may be different for you. So I think people will either lose privacy, or voluntarily give up some privacy for some benefit. In either case, we will need something other than privacy to protect ourselves. I think that well-enforced legislation, legislation that limits the way genetic info can be used and gives the individual more control over their own info, is really the only thing that can help.

muser8 3y ago
> I think that well-enforced legislation, legislation that limits the way genetic info can be used and gives the individual more control over their own info, is really the only thing that can help. Absolutely, in theory. But when have politicians respected legislation's original intent over their self-interest over time, especially when monied parties are desirous of changes for those party's own ends?