3 ms·
With all due respect, that's baseless FUD. Call me naive, but I believe insurance companies have more concrete battles to fight (e.g. confirmed preexisting con
by guiambros 2y ago
With all due respect, that's baseless FUD.
Call me naive, but I believe insurance companies have more concrete battles to fight (e.g. confirmed preexisting conditions), than getting in a legal quagmire with insurees just because "you have 2.7% risk of having early onset of X, instead of the 1.35% of the average population".
I understand the allure of painting everything with dystopian Orwellian colors and "but-what-if-they-do" thing, but the fact that 23andme is going bankrupt and others are not much better (Ancestry was acquired by a PE firm in 2020, and is increasingly pivoting away from DNA) is a great indicator that DNA data is commercially worthless.
If anything, the biggest risk is your data being used for ads. I bet some pharma companies would love to use your DNA data to enhance their 1PD propensity models.
- Rodeoclash 2y agoGovernments often round people up based on some criteria. Unless something has changed that I don't know about, I don't see why this won't happen again.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoIf that happens with your government, your best option is to be somewhere else.
- mafuy 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_the_Netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_the_Netherlan...
- washadjeffmad 2y agoThat's quite a failure of creativity. Like Google with their "I'm not touching you" profiling by metadata, you don't have to identify an individual to be able to target them. There's also an incredible asymmetry of information in these fields and industries. What makes you think you know enough to say that protected data isn't being laundered, legally or illegally, through private companies around the globe to inform the very opaque pricing of medical services and insurance in the US?