27 ms·

I agree most folks aren't aware of the risks. But I'm guessing for the vast majority of people that are aware of the risks, the thought process is basically alo

I agree most folks aren't aware of the risks. But I'm guessing for the vast majority of people that are aware of the risks, the thought process is basically along the lines of: 1. I'm simply not that important. There are millions of other people who have given this data to 23 and me and the like, and I'm just some rando peon - nobody is going to be specifically searching for my DNA. 2. The "worst case scenarios", e.g. getting health insurance denied because you have some gene, still seem implausible to me. Granted, there is a ton of stuff I thought would be implausible 5-10 years ago that is now happening, but something like this feels like it would be pushed back against from all sides of the political spectrum, even in our highly polarized world. 3. I haven't murdered anyone, so I'm not worried about getting caught up in a DNA dragnet. Sure, there can be false positives, but to get on in life you pretty much have to ignore events with low statistical probability (or otherwise nobody would even get in a car on the road, and that has a much higher statistical probability of doing you harm).

generationP 2y ago
What if someone in your family has done a crime, and the result of your DNA being online is (1) you are the first suspect and (2) the criminal might well learn/suspect that they have been compromised through you?
- mustyoshi 2y ago
  Isn't it better for society as a whole if criminals are apprehended? Even moreso if they're one that would be a physical threat like you're suggesting?
  - haxxorfreak 2y ago
    Yes, assuming the label of who is a “criminal” is fair. There is always the risk of a society or government changing that definition after they have the data and it’s too late to go back.
  - nukem222 2y ago
    Depends on the crime. They aren't exactly fungible acts. Furthermore the state isn't exactly obligated to manage society, even if this has occurred in various forms throughout history. Many of our laws weren't exactly written with "society's" best interest at heart. Ultimately, the state will look after itself above all else. I'm just saying I'd like the state to have to work hard to put people away. The law can just as easily be wielded to harm people. I don't see much sign the american public agrees with me, and politicians certainly don't agree. Even mr "it's a witch hunt" trump is only anti-LEO when it comes to his own crimes. But I'd rather have some low background level of crime than the sinking feeling that we're imprisoning a lot of innocent people, as unpopular a sentiment it might be to some in this country. Besides, if the government doesn't take care of society, higher crime is inevitable.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    Mustyosi, your DNA was found on a coffee cup at a Denny’s frequented by terrorists destroying Tesla property. Where were you on Tuesday at 2?
    - adolph 2y ago
      “Zoom and enhance” forensics aren’t real right? Isn’t it mostly NSA listens in and then they have to parallel construct something to hide the illegal pervasive surveillance?
      - consteval 2y ago
        Pretty much all of forensics isn't real. Blood splatter analysis, polygraphs, fingerprinting. That doesn't mean it doesn't put people in jail.
        trogdor 2y ago
        What, specifically, are you claiming is “not real” about fingerprinting?
        thunderfork 2y ago
        There's a common belief that fingerprint analysis is objective and reliable, but there's a great deal of subjectivity involved. Additionally, there have been several convictions involving fingerprints as evidence which were eventually overturned. While they may still be useful, they have an image of infallibility that doesn't line up with reality.
        adolph 2y ago
        Their use as evidence has been challenged by academics, judges and the media. There are no uniform standards for point-counting methods, and academics have argued that the error rate in matching fingerprints has not been adequately studied and that fingerprint evidence has no secure statistical foundation. Research has been conducted into whether experts can objectively focus on feature information in fingerprints without being misled by extraneous information, such as context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I think your example highlights why most people don't view these as plausible concerns: 1. If I had a family member who was a serial murderer or rapist a la the Golden State Killer, I would want him apprehended. 2. "the criminal might well learn/suspect that they have been compromised through you?" That doesn't seem reasonably plausible enough to me to care. What, cousin Billy Bob is going to come hold me hostage because he knows I used 23 and me at some point? Really??
  - kortilla 2y ago
    > 1. If I had a family member who was a serial murderer or rapist a la the Golden State Killer, I would want him apprehended. But you are apprehended instead and are responsible for now coming up with an alibi.
    - krisoft 2y ago
      That is not how dna evidence works in my understanding. They would know if you are a partial match or a complete match.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  Very unlikely things can happen, sure, but they can just as well be positive: What if an unknown biological relative of mine happens to be a billionaire and gifts me $10M like he does for all his other relatives?
mschuster91 2y ago
> The "worst case scenarios", e.g. getting health insurance denied because you have some gene, still seem implausible to me. We're halfway there, data mining by insurances already is the norm in car insurance. We should have fought back hard back in the day this was proposed. > I haven't murdered anyone, so I'm not worried about getting caught up in a DNA dragnet. Sure, there can be false positives, but to get on in life you pretty much have to ignore events with low statistical probability Even if you haven't murdered anyone or intend to to so - your genetic data is useful in the pig dragnet. Your genetic data may be what provides the pigs with a link to your nephew who moonlights as a graffiti sprayer... and yes, the German pigs are doing DNA checks on graffiti sprayers, they have been doing so for over two decades [1]. [1] https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article398332/Graffiti-Erstmals-musste-Sprayer-zum-Gen-Test.html https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article398332/Graffiti-Erstma...
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Just a suggestion: if your goal is to convince the average Joe why DNA privacy is a concern, and you solely refer to the police multiple times as "pigs", you're not going to persuade many people.
  - consteval 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      > Here in the US, everyone hates cops. If you honestly believe that, you live in an echo chamber on this topic. This Gallup poll from 2024 reported a majority of Americans have either "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the police: https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-mostly-flat-police.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-...

generationP 2y ago

What if someone in your family has done a crime, and the result of your DNA being online is (1) you are the first suspect and (2) the criminal might well learn/suspect that they have been compromised through you?

mustyoshi 2y ago
Isn't it better for society as a whole if criminals are apprehended? Even moreso if they're one that would be a physical threat like you're suggesting?
- haxxorfreak 2y ago
  Yes, assuming the label of who is a “criminal” is fair. There is always the risk of a society or government changing that definition after they have the data and it’s too late to go back.
- nukem222 2y ago
  Depends on the crime. They aren't exactly fungible acts. Furthermore the state isn't exactly obligated to manage society, even if this has occurred in various forms throughout history. Many of our laws weren't exactly written with "society's" best interest at heart. Ultimately, the state will look after itself above all else. I'm just saying I'd like the state to have to work hard to put people away. The law can just as easily be wielded to harm people. I don't see much sign the american public agrees with me, and politicians certainly don't agree. Even mr "it's a witch hunt" trump is only anti-LEO when it comes to his own crimes. But I'd rather have some low background level of crime than the sinking feeling that we're imprisoning a lot of innocent people, as unpopular a sentiment it might be to some in this country. Besides, if the government doesn't take care of society, higher crime is inevitable.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Mustyosi, your DNA was found on a coffee cup at a Denny’s frequented by terrorists destroying Tesla property. Where were you on Tuesday at 2?
  - adolph 2y ago
    “Zoom and enhance” forensics aren’t real right? Isn’t it mostly NSA listens in and then they have to parallel construct something to hide the illegal pervasive surveillance?
    - consteval 2y ago
      Pretty much all of forensics isn't real. Blood splatter analysis, polygraphs, fingerprinting. That doesn't mean it doesn't put people in jail.
      - trogdor 2y ago
        What, specifically, are you claiming is “not real” about fingerprinting?
        thunderfork 2y ago
        There's a common belief that fingerprint analysis is objective and reliable, but there's a great deal of subjectivity involved. Additionally, there have been several convictions involving fingerprints as evidence which were eventually overturned. While they may still be useful, they have an image of infallibility that doesn't line up with reality.
        adolph 2y ago
        Their use as evidence has been challenged by academics, judges and the media. There are no uniform standards for point-counting methods, and academics have argued that the error rate in matching fingerprints has not been adequately studied and that fingerprint evidence has no secure statistical foundation. Research has been conducted into whether experts can objectively focus on feature information in fingerprints without being misled by extraneous information, such as context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I think your example highlights why most people don't view these as plausible concerns: 1. If I had a family member who was a serial murderer or rapist a la the Golden State Killer, I would want him apprehended. 2. "the criminal might well learn/suspect that they have been compromised through you?" That doesn't seem reasonably plausible enough to me to care. What, cousin Billy Bob is going to come hold me hostage because he knows I used 23 and me at some point? Really??
- kortilla 2y ago
  > 1. If I had a family member who was a serial murderer or rapist a la the Golden State Killer, I would want him apprehended. But you are apprehended instead and are responsible for now coming up with an alibi.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    That is not how dna evidence works in my understanding. They would know if you are a partial match or a complete match.
BurningFrog 2y ago
Very unlikely things can happen, sure, but they can just as well be positive: What if an unknown biological relative of mine happens to be a billionaire and gifts me $10M like he does for all his other relatives?

mschuster91 2y ago

> The "worst case scenarios", e.g. getting health insurance denied because you have some gene, still seem implausible to me. We're halfway there, data mining by insurances already is the norm in car insurance. We should have fought back hard back in the day this was proposed. > I haven't murdered anyone, so I'm not worried about getting caught up in a DNA dragnet. Sure, there can be false positives, but to get on in life you pretty much have to ignore events with low statistical probability Even if you haven't murdered anyone or intend to to so - your genetic data is useful in the pig dragnet. Your genetic data may be what provides the pigs with a link to your nephew who moonlights as a graffiti sprayer... and yes, the German pigs are doing DNA checks on graffiti sprayers, they have been doing so for over two decades [1]. [1] https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article398332/Graffiti-Erstmals-musste-Sprayer-zum-Gen-Test.html https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article398332/Graffiti-Erstma...

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Just a suggestion: if your goal is to convince the average Joe why DNA privacy is a concern, and you solely refer to the police multiple times as "pigs", you're not going to persuade many people.
- consteval 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    > Here in the US, everyone hates cops. If you honestly believe that, you live in an echo chamber on this topic. This Gallup poll from 2024 reported a majority of Americans have either "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the police: https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-mostly-flat-police.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-...