5 ms·

> I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA to companies that even if they are not selling that data sooner or later could have that d

> I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA to companies that even if they are not selling that data sooner or later could have that data leak and the consequences could mean being able to afford life and medical insurance or not. I’m the odd one out on this thread but I just… don’t see why it’s a big deal? All the consequences of my dna leaking seem so extremely theoretical and unlikely that I’m willing to take the risk in exchange for a few minutes of fun reading a report about where my ancestors came from. This is always framed like people who willingly surrender privacy must not know better or be uneducated about the harms but I think it’s fair for people to just decide they don’t evaluate the harms as very serious. The example you gave about health insurance is implausible because it’s illegal in the US and I assume other developed countries for insurers to charge different amounts for health coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It strikes me as very, very paranoid to worry that someday my DNA might leak, and there’s something bad in it, and the law will change such that insurers can abuse it, and I for some reason won’t have a job that gives me health insurance anyway. That’s a lot of ands making the probability of that outcome very small.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
<< The example you gave about health insurance is implausible because it’s illegal in the US and I assume other developed countries for insurers to charge different amounts for health coverage based on pre-existing conditions. As phrased, I am unable to comment as to whether that statement is accurate, but I will go with it for the sake of the argument. I chuckled a little, because that one phrase immediately reminded of just how much political capital was spent to even allow 'pre-existing conditions' to be removed as a factor in denying coverage. What exactly makes you think that law cannot be changed?
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  Changing the law is extremely difficult in the US because of the gridlocked-by-design political system, so I think it's unlikely. Changing it would also be extremely unpopular. Of course it could happen. But even if it did, all the other unlikely events I listed would all have to happen for me to be harmed. The point of my post was that me being harmed due to having given my DNA to 23&me is unlikely, not impossible. Just like it's theoretically possible a brick could fall on my head while walking outside, but I still don't wear a helmet every time I go outside. Worrying so much about this stuff just feels to me like the tech geek version of preppers who stock their house with guns and canned food in case the apocalypse comes (which never does).
  - binoct 2y ago
    Read this post again but take it as a response to someone claiming in 2020 that Roe V Wade could be overturned.
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      I've repeated multiple times now that my post isn't intended to be a claim that no law ever changes in the US or that nothing bad ever happens. I'm not sure how I can make my point more clear.
    - kortilla 2y ago
      Roe v Wade wasn’t a law. Actions by the Supreme Court which are unfavorable are much more likely given that there are only 9 justices, they are appointed regardless of popularity, and they have lifetime appointments.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        We are playing semantics here, but the impact is about the same. Would you accept that the decision had a weight of a law?
        kortilla 2y ago
        The discussion is you comparing the overturn of a law to overturn of Roe v Wade. The weight is completely irrelevant because we’re discussing the difficulty of the action. Anyone who knows basic federal government structure in the US knows court rulings are significantly easier to move quickly compared to passing real laws. This isn’t “playing semantics”, it completely invalidates your point. Look at how well overturning obama care went to see how difficult law passing is.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        << This isn’t “playing semantics”, it completely invalidates your point. Look at how well overturning obama care went to see how difficult law passing is. You do have a point. I disagree that it invalidates mine, but it does weaken it based on how it was originally present it. That said, we are absolutely playing semantics, because while Roe vs Wade was not the law, it was a precedent that effectively held back even a consideration of law changes at bay. So it is not irrelevant, but you are correct from a purely technical standpoint. << Anyone who knows basic federal government structure in the US knows court rulings are significantly easier to move quickly compared to passing real laws. Zero disagreement.
fn-mote 2y ago
> The example you gave about health insurance is implausible [...] See [1]. From [1]: > GINA focuses only on one line of insurance—health; it does not prohibit other insurances—life , disability, long-term care (LTC), auto, or property—from using genetic information [...] in 2020, [...] Florida became the first US state to prohibit life, LTC, and disability insurers from using genetic test results to set premiums or to cancel, limit, or deny coverage To me that means you are not safe. > and there's something bad in it This is just gambling. If enough peoples' DNA is out there, you will see the whole-population rate for conditions. You might consider it OK to be unexpectedly unable to buy long-term disability insurance because you have a 50x greater risk for YYYY than the general population. > [...] and I for some reason won’t have a job that gives me health insurance anyway This is an extremely privileged attitude. This part seems to me that if you get very ill you *must* continue to work in order to maintain your coverage. Even a highly paid SWE can be laid low by carpal tunnel syndrome. [1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9165621/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9165621/
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  While the stuff about disability and LTC insurance is slightly concerning, the part about life insurance isn't. I've never seen any convincing evidence that life insurance is anything but a big scam. The only time it seems to make any sense if if you're pretty sure you're going to die very soon, and take out a term life insurance, but this seems to require either the ability to see the future, or a plan to hire someone to kill you so your family gets the insurance money. Why auto or property insurance would be affected by your DNA I can't even begin to imagine.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Term life insurance is not a scam if you have dependents. It’s offloading the potentially severe consequences to someone else if you’re the primary wage earner and die, during a defined period of time. And it’s generally inexpensive. Think ‘normally I’d be working for another 20 years, would buy a house, send kids to college, etc. but I just got diagnosed with terminal cancer and now my kids are totally screwed.’. Whole life insurance is a scam.
AyyEye 2y ago
It's all fun and games until someone finds your hair at a crime scene. Sprinkle in a bit of 'a white toyota was spotted leaving and he also owns a white Toyota' and you're in for an adventure.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  As I've said many times before in this subthread, I'm not claiming it's impossible that something bad could happen, just that it's very improbable, so it would be irrational to let fear of it control my life.
  - AyyEye 2y ago
    People regularly get convicted on far less evidence.
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      Far less evidence than what? Can you state exactly what your threat model is? As far as I can tell, it's: * My hair happens to be at the scene of a crime I didn't commit * The police force 23&me to tell them whose DNA it corresponds to (or the records have already leaked so the police just know) * I also happen to have the same color and make of car that was seen leaving the seen * Therefore, the prosecutor successfully tries and convicts me. Being honest, what do you think is the probability of this sequence of events happening?
      - gambiting 2y ago
        I seriously recommend anyone that they watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE The TLDR is that the actual real evidence doesn't matter - what matters is if the prosecution and the police are able to convince a jury that you did the crime. Watch at least the lawyer's section until the end(the cop's section is basically - "everything he said is true").
gonzobonzo 2y ago
> All the consequences of my dna leaking seem so extremely theoretical and unlikely that I’m willing to take the risk in exchange for a few minutes of fun reading a report about where my ancestors came from. That's one of the things I've found odd about these discussions. Most of the concern seems to be about very theoretical things that we don't see in reality. On the other hand, the actual harm I'm seeing from mass surveillance is the fact that social media mobs often come through someone's life and try - often successfully - to ruin them. The way things currently stand, the fact that I'm unable to delete Hacker News comments is much more of a threat than sending my DNA to 23andMe.
- lynx23 2y ago
  Full ACK. HN deletion policy is very bad and unfriendly.
belorn 2y ago
This may be a bit late in the discussion, but one of the biggest deal with allowing DNA to be put into databases which the police can trawl is that the risk of false positives increases as the database size increases. DNA profiling is a probability game with an underlying assumption that people in the DNA database are of higher risk of being guilty than those not in it. Most conviction on DNA evidence also use partial DNA, meaning they accept an even higher risk of false positive. The current methods in DNA forensic is also to use AI to combine multiple partial DNA to create a single profiles, and the false positives of those are not very well understood by judges and juries. The legal system and the evidence value of DNA profile could adapt to a world where every persons DNA is accessible, but it is a slow process and I doubt it will be done in my life time.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago

<< The example you gave about health insurance is implausible because it’s illegal in the US and I assume other developed countries for insurers to charge different amounts for health coverage based on pre-existing conditions. As phrased, I am unable to comment as to whether that statement is accurate, but I will go with it for the sake of the argument. I chuckled a little, because that one phrase immediately reminded of just how much political capital was spent to even allow 'pre-existing conditions' to be removed as a factor in denying coverage. What exactly makes you think that law cannot be changed?

School-Cotton 2y ago
Changing the law is extremely difficult in the US because of the gridlocked-by-design political system, so I think it's unlikely. Changing it would also be extremely unpopular. Of course it could happen. But even if it did, all the other unlikely events I listed would all have to happen for me to be harmed. The point of my post was that me being harmed due to having given my DNA to 23&me is unlikely, not impossible. Just like it's theoretically possible a brick could fall on my head while walking outside, but I still don't wear a helmet every time I go outside. Worrying so much about this stuff just feels to me like the tech geek version of preppers who stock their house with guns and canned food in case the apocalypse comes (which never does).
- binoct 2y ago
  Read this post again but take it as a response to someone claiming in 2020 that Roe V Wade could be overturned.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    I've repeated multiple times now that my post isn't intended to be a claim that no law ever changes in the US or that nothing bad ever happens. I'm not sure how I can make my point more clear.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    Roe v Wade wasn’t a law. Actions by the Supreme Court which are unfavorable are much more likely given that there are only 9 justices, they are appointed regardless of popularity, and they have lifetime appointments.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      We are playing semantics here, but the impact is about the same. Would you accept that the decision had a weight of a law?
      - kortilla 2y ago
        The discussion is you comparing the overturn of a law to overturn of Roe v Wade. The weight is completely irrelevant because we’re discussing the difficulty of the action. Anyone who knows basic federal government structure in the US knows court rulings are significantly easier to move quickly compared to passing real laws. This isn’t “playing semantics”, it completely invalidates your point. Look at how well overturning obama care went to see how difficult law passing is.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        << This isn’t “playing semantics”, it completely invalidates your point. Look at how well overturning obama care went to see how difficult law passing is. You do have a point. I disagree that it invalidates mine, but it does weaken it based on how it was originally present it. That said, we are absolutely playing semantics, because while Roe vs Wade was not the law, it was a precedent that effectively held back even a consideration of law changes at bay. So it is not irrelevant, but you are correct from a purely technical standpoint. << Anyone who knows basic federal government structure in the US knows court rulings are significantly easier to move quickly compared to passing real laws. Zero disagreement.

fn-mote 2y ago

> The example you gave about health insurance is implausible [...] See [1]. From [1]: > GINA focuses only on one line of insurance—health; it does not prohibit other insurances—life , disability, long-term care (LTC), auto, or property—from using genetic information [...] in 2020, [...] Florida became the first US state to prohibit life, LTC, and disability insurers from using genetic test results to set premiums or to cancel, limit, or deny coverage To me that means you are not safe. > and there's something bad in it This is just gambling. If enough peoples' DNA is out there, you will see the whole-population rate for conditions. You might consider it OK to be unexpectedly unable to buy long-term disability insurance because you have a 50x greater risk for YYYY than the general population. > [...] and I for some reason won’t have a job that gives me health insurance anyway This is an extremely privileged attitude. This part seems to me that if you get very ill you *must* continue to work in order to maintain your coverage. Even a highly paid SWE can be laid low by carpal tunnel syndrome. [1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9165621/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9165621/

shiroiushi 2y ago
While the stuff about disability and LTC insurance is slightly concerning, the part about life insurance isn't. I've never seen any convincing evidence that life insurance is anything but a big scam. The only time it seems to make any sense if if you're pretty sure you're going to die very soon, and take out a term life insurance, but this seems to require either the ability to see the future, or a plan to hire someone to kill you so your family gets the insurance money. Why auto or property insurance would be affected by your DNA I can't even begin to imagine.
- lazide 2y ago
  Term life insurance is not a scam if you have dependents. It’s offloading the potentially severe consequences to someone else if you’re the primary wage earner and die, during a defined period of time. And it’s generally inexpensive. Think ‘normally I’d be working for another 20 years, would buy a house, send kids to college, etc. but I just got diagnosed with terminal cancer and now my kids are totally screwed.’. Whole life insurance is a scam.

AyyEye 2y ago

It's all fun and games until someone finds your hair at a crime scene. Sprinkle in a bit of 'a white toyota was spotted leaving and he also owns a white Toyota' and you're in for an adventure.

School-Cotton 2y ago
As I've said many times before in this subthread, I'm not claiming it's impossible that something bad could happen, just that it's very improbable, so it would be irrational to let fear of it control my life.
- AyyEye 2y ago
  People regularly get convicted on far less evidence.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    Far less evidence than what? Can you state exactly what your threat model is? As far as I can tell, it's: * My hair happens to be at the scene of a crime I didn't commit * The police force 23&me to tell them whose DNA it corresponds to (or the records have already leaked so the police just know) * I also happen to have the same color and make of car that was seen leaving the seen * Therefore, the prosecutor successfully tries and convicts me. Being honest, what do you think is the probability of this sequence of events happening?
    - gambiting 2y ago
      I seriously recommend anyone that they watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE The TLDR is that the actual real evidence doesn't matter - what matters is if the prosecution and the police are able to convince a jury that you did the crime. Watch at least the lawyer's section until the end(the cop's section is basically - "everything he said is true").

gonzobonzo 2y ago

> All the consequences of my dna leaking seem so extremely theoretical and unlikely that I’m willing to take the risk in exchange for a few minutes of fun reading a report about where my ancestors came from. That's one of the things I've found odd about these discussions. Most of the concern seems to be about very theoretical things that we don't see in reality. On the other hand, the actual harm I'm seeing from mass surveillance is the fact that social media mobs often come through someone's life and try - often successfully - to ruin them. The way things currently stand, the fact that I'm unable to delete Hacker News comments is much more of a threat than sending my DNA to 23andMe.

lynx23 2y ago
Full ACK. HN deletion policy is very bad and unfriendly.

belorn 2y ago

This may be a bit late in the discussion, but one of the biggest deal with allowing DNA to be put into databases which the police can trawl is that the risk of false positives increases as the database size increases. DNA profiling is a probability game with an underlying assumption that people in the DNA database are of higher risk of being guilty than those not in it. Most conviction on DNA evidence also use partial DNA, meaning they accept an even higher risk of false positive. The current methods in DNA forensic is also to use AI to combine multiple partial DNA to create a single profiles, and the false positives of those are not very well understood by judges and juries. The legal system and the evidence value of DNA profile could adapt to a world where every persons DNA is accessible, but it is a slow process and I doubt it will be done in my life time.