3 ms·

> you will not get insured (or have high rates) because you have {some genetic condition}.. s/insured/hired Wait until we have DNA detectors wired up to colle

> you will not get insured (or have high rates) because you have {some genetic condition}.. s/insured/hired Wait until we have DNA detectors wired up to collect the DNA we exhale and rapid sequencers that handle what might be below the limit of detection today. Maybe that's fifty years down the road, but it's coming. Gattaca was a prescient premonition, it was just a hundred years ahead of its time.

ks2048 1y ago
Yes, I can imagine those dystopias - my point was that I don't imagine my choice to try 23andMe in 2019 is what dooms me - while others are saved by not making that choice.
- jraph 1y ago
  I kind of understand your point, now my view would be that it should not be a reason not to delete the data from them, in case it actually helps. Otherwise: 1. Why take the chance? 2. Your DNA being out in the wild also impacts the privacy of your relatives (including those you might not know, and those who don't exist yet (a child, a nephew, a niece for instance)), so if not for you, do it for them. It won't be a guarantee, but it maximizes the chances.
  - vintermann 1y ago
    Why take the chance? Because genealogical data is valuable to you, of course. If it isn't, no amount of legal or technical security will make it worth it. I do think that the health stuff from 23andMe is only marginally better than astrology, that the ethnicity estimates are inferior to what most people can get from good old fashioned genealogy, but that the matching may be useful, if you value knowing who you're related to a lot.
    - jraph 1y ago
      OP said "I do worry about my data with them", it seems to be the best they could do to try resolve this would be to delete the data. But indeed, that's me thinking that you should care a lot more about your privacy and the privacy of your relatives than anything 23andMe provides. I mean, I think I would find it fun to discover relatives, but not at this cost.
hammyhavoc 1y ago
What makes you believe this is coming? What evidence points to this inevitability?
rixed 1y ago
Either you or me are deeply wrong about how genotypes relate to phenotype. While some DNA characteristics can be statistically linked with some costly health conditions, the connection to "being a good hire" seems totally imaginary to me, has always been and will always be. For what it's worth, public posts and comments on internet are probably a much better indicator of whether someone is going to be an obedient employee, and this dystopia is technically doable right now, and certainly many are working on it already.
- lnsru 1y ago
  The samples of DNA of the best employees will be collected, evaluated and compared to applicants. So if your DNA is similar they will let you in. Wait for a clever startup to offer a complete solution for this comparison soon.
  - rixed 1y ago
    I'm not discussing that it would be doable if it worked, and that some startups will be up for it. I'm saying that DNA is not a predictor of being a "good employee", and if you believe otherwise I'd be interrested to know why.
    - echelon 1y ago
      > I'm saying that DNA is not a predictor of being a "good employee" Sure it is. Easy case in point: count the chromosomes. The wrong number alters gene dosage, leading to diseases such as down syndrome. Neuroticism amongst many other personality traits is heavily genetically linked, obesity and cardiovascular health are genetically linked, ... Lots of things an employer or insurer would be interested in if our laws do not protect us. Some may eventually be willing to skirt the law if it gives them an edge and the penalties don't outweigh the benefits. We're not there yet, but give it 25-50 years.
      - rixed 1y ago
        Come on, I don't need a dna analysis to tell if one has Down syndrome or is obese. Again, a google search teach me much more about a candidate than his or her dna. And about dna to be used baselessly to take decision, sure, like graphology, or astrology could be used... but then concealing dna is like concealing your handwriting or exact date of birth. Why not, but we are no longer speaking about privacy protection but about fighting superstition.
barbazoo 1y ago
Why would that matter at hiring time? If the person develops a health issue during employment they’ll just fire them. Unlike insurance where there they’d have to spend money.
qingcharles 1y ago
50 years down the road AI will have taken all the jobs, so I'm not sure we should be worried about getting hired. That ship will have sailed.

ks2048 1y ago

Yes, I can imagine those dystopias - my point was that I don't imagine my choice to try 23andMe in 2019 is what dooms me - while others are saved by not making that choice.

jraph 1y ago
I kind of understand your point, now my view would be that it should not be a reason not to delete the data from them, in case it actually helps. Otherwise: 1. Why take the chance? 2. Your DNA being out in the wild also impacts the privacy of your relatives (including those you might not know, and those who don't exist yet (a child, a nephew, a niece for instance)), so if not for you, do it for them. It won't be a guarantee, but it maximizes the chances.
- vintermann 1y ago
  Why take the chance? Because genealogical data is valuable to you, of course. If it isn't, no amount of legal or technical security will make it worth it. I do think that the health stuff from 23andMe is only marginally better than astrology, that the ethnicity estimates are inferior to what most people can get from good old fashioned genealogy, but that the matching may be useful, if you value knowing who you're related to a lot.
  - jraph 1y ago
    OP said "I do worry about my data with them", it seems to be the best they could do to try resolve this would be to delete the data. But indeed, that's me thinking that you should care a lot more about your privacy and the privacy of your relatives than anything 23andMe provides. I mean, I think I would find it fun to discover relatives, but not at this cost.

hammyhavoc 1y ago

What makes you believe this is coming? What evidence points to this inevitability?

rixed 1y ago

Either you or me are deeply wrong about how genotypes relate to phenotype. While some DNA characteristics can be statistically linked with some costly health conditions, the connection to "being a good hire" seems totally imaginary to me, has always been and will always be. For what it's worth, public posts and comments on internet are probably a much better indicator of whether someone is going to be an obedient employee, and this dystopia is technically doable right now, and certainly many are working on it already.

lnsru 1y ago
The samples of DNA of the best employees will be collected, evaluated and compared to applicants. So if your DNA is similar they will let you in. Wait for a clever startup to offer a complete solution for this comparison soon.
- rixed 1y ago
  I'm not discussing that it would be doable if it worked, and that some startups will be up for it. I'm saying that DNA is not a predictor of being a "good employee", and if you believe otherwise I'd be interrested to know why.
  - echelon 1y ago
    > I'm saying that DNA is not a predictor of being a "good employee" Sure it is. Easy case in point: count the chromosomes. The wrong number alters gene dosage, leading to diseases such as down syndrome. Neuroticism amongst many other personality traits is heavily genetically linked, obesity and cardiovascular health are genetically linked, ... Lots of things an employer or insurer would be interested in if our laws do not protect us. Some may eventually be willing to skirt the law if it gives them an edge and the penalties don't outweigh the benefits. We're not there yet, but give it 25-50 years.
    - rixed 1y ago
      Come on, I don't need a dna analysis to tell if one has Down syndrome or is obese. Again, a google search teach me much more about a candidate than his or her dna. And about dna to be used baselessly to take decision, sure, like graphology, or astrology could be used... but then concealing dna is like concealing your handwriting or exact date of birth. Why not, but we are no longer speaking about privacy protection but about fighting superstition.

barbazoo 1y ago

Why would that matter at hiring time? If the person develops a health issue during employment they’ll just fire them. Unlike insurance where there they’d have to spend money.

qingcharles 1y ago

50 years down the road AI will have taken all the jobs, so I'm not sure we should be worried about getting hired. That ship will have sailed.