6 ms·

Okay but like, I'm not planning on committing a crime and nothing I do now is considered criminal, but let's play out the worst case scenario and a fascist gove

Okay but like, I'm not planning on committing a crime and nothing I do now is considered criminal, but let's play out the worst case scenario and a fascist government comes to power and something I do now is considered criminal and they can place me doing it with this DNA that as the author describes can narrow down if it was me pretty easily. You can tell me I'm paranoid or something, but I can also just not give them my DNA for no effort and be all the more better off if something like this happens OR if I do commit a crime under current laws I haven't given up the ghost immediately. This feels like short term little gain for catastrophic effects in the worst case scenario. The author also makes this like a weird dichotomy with online tracking, I ALSO care about being tracked on the internet and my personal privacy is pretty important to me in general. I want all of my privacy, or better worded I want privacy to be my choice such as here on HN where I use my real name intentionally. :)

jacquesm 1y ago
> let's play out the worst case scenario and a fascist government comes to power That's borderline no longer a hypothetical.
- akimbostrawman 1y ago
  maybe this kind of fear mongering is needed to finally make people care about privacy but I doubt most would beyond posting about it on social media for performative outrage.
johnisgood 1y ago
> Okay but like, I'm not planning on committing a crime and nothing I do now is considered criminal I genuinely don't know and would like to know: are you being sarcastic? I'm asking because to me it seems like you are, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
- ianbutler 1y ago
  No I'm disarming a common quip from people immediately and effectively.
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    [REDACTED]
    - worik 1y ago
      I agree And it is not the state (criminality) that is the biggest risk IMO. The classifying of people into "sheep and goats" is more likely to come from private power. Governments are dangerous, yes. But there are many fewer democratic checks and balances over private power
    - yura 1y ago
      You're literally restating the same point that the original poster has already made in his comment. You're agreeing with him. Seems like you just read the first phrase of his comment and immediately went into an adversarial "are you being sarcastic?" loop. Because the point you made is what came immediately after the part you quoted in his original comment: > [...] but let's play out the worst case scenario and a fascist government comes to power and something I do now is considered criminal and they can place me doing it with this DNA that as the author describes can narrow down if it was me pretty easily.
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        No, I read his full comment, but I have a problem with "I'm not planning on committing a crime and nothing I do now is considered criminal" which is commonplace these days to say. I laid it out as to what. So, as for the rest of his comments, such as: "The author also makes this like a weird dichotomy with online tracking, I ALSO care about being tracked on the internet and my personal privacy is pretty important to me in general.", I agree. I edited my comment as it was deeply misunderstood, and I am not interested in having it derailed even further. Maybe another time.
- coldtea 1y ago
  He is making a hypothetical scenario, and is pre-emptively addressing the bullshit argument "you only care for privacy because you're a criminal/want to commit a crime, innocent people have nothing to hide".
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    Oh, okay, not sure why I did not get that from his comment. I suppose I should have asked myself "how come I agree with the rest of his comment apart from the first part?". Because I actually addressed that "have nothing to hide" argument. Oh well!
alistairSH 1y ago
It's not a "weird" dichotomy, it's a straight-up false dichotomy. DNA is just one facet of all the data being actively collected by SuperMegaCorp and/or governments (or probably worst of all, both at the same time and in cooperation with each other).
- ianbutler 1y ago
  Sure could have used stronger language here, I agree
- amelius 1y ago
  DNA is also the only piece of data we all spread around without there being any practical security measure to prevent it. (not entirely true because we also spread other biometric data, such as facial images)
sampo 1y ago
> and they can place me doing it with this DNA Probably easier to place you with your cell phone location data, or surveillance cameras and face recognition.
- fruitworks 1y ago
  You can leave the phone at home and bring the ski mask
a_bonobo 1y ago
Two common points crop up in these kinds of discussions: - what if you're part of a minority the government wants to disappear, like the Uyghur in China? DNA is indicative of many minorities. You don't have to commit a crime. - you don't have to share your DNA, some distant cousin sharing theirs is enough to implicate you (as in the Golden State Killer's arrest). You cannot control your far-flung relatives. You may not have a choice in this kind of privacy. That's what makes DNA unique in relation to other kinds of private data: your cousin's browsing history does not implicate you, DNA however may.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - fruitworks 1y ago
    The laws of the land don't override my personal interests.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - close04 1y ago
        > it may suck if you are forced to give up something you are passionate about Your life. “Genocide/ethnic cleansing sucks but if the people want it, you deserve to get it.” charcircuit, 2025
      - michaelsshaw 1y ago
        We give up degenerate and harmful "interests" sure (murder, theft etc.) but we certainly don't need to give up any what we believe in just because of some irrational attachment to a certain state.
      - scott_w 1y ago
        > Yes, it may suck if you are forced to give up something you are passionate about I'm sure Jews in 1930s Germany were passionate about living in dignity. The Nazis made sure they had to give that up.
inglor_cz 1y ago
I fully agree with your apprehensions, but the question is whether this can be prevented at all. We shed DNA in useful, analyzable amounts wherever we go. In a decade or so, "collectors" of DNA from the air may sprout up everywhere, aggregating DNA of the passersby and sorting it into buckets using, say, face recognition. Even if such practice was limited to the airports, the databases will grow. People have to prove their identity when boarding flights, so pairing them with their DNA trace is feasible. And if a country bans this practice, another may not, and their database may be hacked and sold openly, so any person which traveled there will be exposed. The privacy argument might work in some Western countries, and the corresponding legislation may be enacted there, but once you have to travel to India or China or Dubai profesionally, the cat will be out of the bag.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > people have to prove their identity when boarding flights, so pairing them with their DNA trace is feasible Feasible and present are entirely separate. Look at illegal immigrants today. The ones who co-operated with the government by e.g. showing up to court appointments or registering in apps are easier to catch because of that documentation. So they're prioritised. Same with DNA. Yes, you could pass a rule and then slowly collect DNA from all Americans who fly. But it's a lot easier to start with those who have already given it up.
ArnoVW 1y ago
For those still doubting, this is not a hypothetical case. In the Netherlands, in the early 30's we had a census. All the good jewish citizens of the good kingdom of the Netherlands filled in their religion. Because, why shouldn't they? Fast forward a couple of years, and those detailed census results are really handy for the occupying nazis. During WW II, 95% of the jewish in the Netherlands were killed. Compare this with a country that does not have a central register of it's citizens (France), where "only" 25% of the jewish were killed. Also, when you give up your DNA, you're not just giving it up for you. You're giving it up for your family.
- Smithalicious 1y ago
  Okay, but the Jews were already being regularly persecuted for actual millennia at that point, and this was in... the 1930s, with a very different geopolitical situation. On the other hand, I doubt GP has any real reason to fear imminent ethnic persecution. We can and should take our best guess as to the likelihood of catastrophic events into account in our cost/benefit analysis, surely?
  - Anonbrit 1y ago
    A decade ago, the idea that fairly light and frivolous social media discussion could be used as a reason to deport you from the bastion of free speech known as the USA was laughable. Now, it's reality.
  - N-Krause 1y ago
    I am pretty sure, the people of Netherlands didn't count the chance of a nazi regime invading them in a few years as very high. The question is, is the marginal value that you are gaining from such services worth the risk, even if theoretical, at all. - I don't think so.
  - anonymars 1y ago
    > I doubt GP has any real reason to fear imminent ethnic persecution Why do you doubt that given the very obvious ethnic persecution going on in the US right now against immigrants, especially Hispanics? Like, okay, "Ian Butler" in particular doesn't sound terribly Hispanic, but I think that's splitting hairs on the larger point
vintermann 1y ago
Thing is, a fascist government probably isn't bother to use DNA to make sure they got the right guy. To them, if you look like a useful guy to blame, they'll blame you whether the evidence fits or not. The various "deterrence" effects of punishing wrongdoers don't really rely on the punished actually being guilty, it only relies on people thinking they're guilty. You can see right now with the mass deportations, evidence and making a watertight case aren't priorities once you get to this point. So I think the author's point stand, that there's little additional risk in some private company having your SNPs. The question is, is it worth it? I'd say, unless you (or a relative you want to help) are into genealogy, it's not worth it, even if the risk is small. But genealogy is fun. It's also, I think, something that can be deeply meaningful for almost anyone. Because, do you have all answers to what's important in life? Probably not, I hope? If you haven't, aren't you interested in what answers your own ancestors implicitly (through the lives they lived) gave to the big questions in life? It's commonly said, "those who learn nothing from history are doomed to repeat it" etc. Might that not be true on an immediate, personal level too? History is more than grand politics, it's also the lives of normal people. And who could you learn most from, if not the people who are most similar to you? That's my pitch for doing genealogy as a hobby... Now, it should be said, genetic genealogy is a pretty small part of genealogy, unless you're unfortunate with adoptions etc. in your family. Even for that, I'd say there are better options than 23andMe, I do not see personally have my SNP data there. Point is, for all things, security is a trade-off, about which risks are worth it and for what gain.
mac-mc 1y ago
Partial DNA like 23&me does is so cheap to measure now, something like $20 wholesale and even less if you have very large scales, with a one time requirement to collect. In a decade, whole genome will be similarly cheap, it's $100-$200 wholesale now. Such a hypothetical fascist government can make it a mandatory requirement to be a resident in a country or similar and justify it on crime prevention like they usually like to do.

jacquesm 1y ago

> let's play out the worst case scenario and a fascist government comes to power That's borderline no longer a hypothetical.

akimbostrawman 1y ago
maybe this kind of fear mongering is needed to finally make people care about privacy but I doubt most would beyond posting about it on social media for performative outrage.

johnisgood 1y ago

> Okay but like, I'm not planning on committing a crime and nothing I do now is considered criminal I genuinely don't know and would like to know: are you being sarcastic? I'm asking because to me it seems like you are, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

ianbutler 1y ago
No I'm disarming a common quip from people immediately and effectively.
- johnisgood 1y ago
  [REDACTED]
  - worik 1y ago
    I agree And it is not the state (criminality) that is the biggest risk IMO. The classifying of people into "sheep and goats" is more likely to come from private power. Governments are dangerous, yes. But there are many fewer democratic checks and balances over private power
  - yura 1y ago
    You're literally restating the same point that the original poster has already made in his comment. You're agreeing with him. Seems like you just read the first phrase of his comment and immediately went into an adversarial "are you being sarcastic?" loop. Because the point you made is what came immediately after the part you quoted in his original comment: > [...] but let's play out the worst case scenario and a fascist government comes to power and something I do now is considered criminal and they can place me doing it with this DNA that as the author describes can narrow down if it was me pretty easily.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      No, I read his full comment, but I have a problem with "I'm not planning on committing a crime and nothing I do now is considered criminal" which is commonplace these days to say. I laid it out as to what. So, as for the rest of his comments, such as: "The author also makes this like a weird dichotomy with online tracking, I ALSO care about being tracked on the internet and my personal privacy is pretty important to me in general.", I agree. I edited my comment as it was deeply misunderstood, and I am not interested in having it derailed even further. Maybe another time.
coldtea 1y ago
He is making a hypothetical scenario, and is pre-emptively addressing the bullshit argument "you only care for privacy because you're a criminal/want to commit a crime, innocent people have nothing to hide".
- johnisgood 1y ago
  Oh, okay, not sure why I did not get that from his comment. I suppose I should have asked myself "how come I agree with the rest of his comment apart from the first part?". Because I actually addressed that "have nothing to hide" argument. Oh well!

alistairSH 1y ago

It's not a "weird" dichotomy, it's a straight-up false dichotomy. DNA is just one facet of all the data being actively collected by SuperMegaCorp and/or governments (or probably worst of all, both at the same time and in cooperation with each other).

ianbutler 1y ago
Sure could have used stronger language here, I agree
amelius 1y ago
DNA is also the only piece of data we all spread around without there being any practical security measure to prevent it. (not entirely true because we also spread other biometric data, such as facial images)

sampo 1y ago

> and they can place me doing it with this DNA Probably easier to place you with your cell phone location data, or surveillance cameras and face recognition.

fruitworks 1y ago
You can leave the phone at home and bring the ski mask

a_bonobo 1y ago

Two common points crop up in these kinds of discussions: - what if you're part of a minority the government wants to disappear, like the Uyghur in China? DNA is indicative of many minorities. You don't have to commit a crime. - you don't have to share your DNA, some distant cousin sharing theirs is enough to implicate you (as in the Golden State Killer's arrest). You cannot control your far-flung relatives. You may not have a choice in this kind of privacy. That's what makes DNA unique in relation to other kinds of private data: your cousin's browsing history does not implicate you, DNA however may.

charcircuit 1y ago
[flagged]
- fruitworks 1y ago
  The laws of the land don't override my personal interests.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - close04 1y ago
      > it may suck if you are forced to give up something you are passionate about Your life. “Genocide/ethnic cleansing sucks but if the people want it, you deserve to get it.” charcircuit, 2025
    - michaelsshaw 1y ago
      We give up degenerate and harmful "interests" sure (murder, theft etc.) but we certainly don't need to give up any what we believe in just because of some irrational attachment to a certain state.
    - scott_w 1y ago
      > Yes, it may suck if you are forced to give up something you are passionate about I'm sure Jews in 1930s Germany were passionate about living in dignity. The Nazis made sure they had to give that up.

inglor_cz 1y ago

I fully agree with your apprehensions, but the question is whether this can be prevented at all. We shed DNA in useful, analyzable amounts wherever we go. In a decade or so, "collectors" of DNA from the air may sprout up everywhere, aggregating DNA of the passersby and sorting it into buckets using, say, face recognition. Even if such practice was limited to the airports, the databases will grow. People have to prove their identity when boarding flights, so pairing them with their DNA trace is feasible. And if a country bans this practice, another may not, and their database may be hacked and sold openly, so any person which traveled there will be exposed. The privacy argument might work in some Western countries, and the corresponding legislation may be enacted there, but once you have to travel to India or China or Dubai profesionally, the cat will be out of the bag.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> people have to prove their identity when boarding flights, so pairing them with their DNA trace is feasible Feasible and present are entirely separate. Look at illegal immigrants today. The ones who co-operated with the government by e.g. showing up to court appointments or registering in apps are easier to catch because of that documentation. So they're prioritised. Same with DNA. Yes, you could pass a rule and then slowly collect DNA from all Americans who fly. But it's a lot easier to start with those who have already given it up.

ArnoVW 1y ago

For those still doubting, this is not a hypothetical case. In the Netherlands, in the early 30's we had a census. All the good jewish citizens of the good kingdom of the Netherlands filled in their religion. Because, why shouldn't they? Fast forward a couple of years, and those detailed census results are really handy for the occupying nazis. During WW II, 95% of the jewish in the Netherlands were killed. Compare this with a country that does not have a central register of it's citizens (France), where "only" 25% of the jewish were killed. Also, when you give up your DNA, you're not just giving it up for you. You're giving it up for your family.

Smithalicious 1y ago
Okay, but the Jews were already being regularly persecuted for actual millennia at that point, and this was in... the 1930s, with a very different geopolitical situation. On the other hand, I doubt GP has any real reason to fear imminent ethnic persecution. We can and should take our best guess as to the likelihood of catastrophic events into account in our cost/benefit analysis, surely?
- Anonbrit 1y ago
  A decade ago, the idea that fairly light and frivolous social media discussion could be used as a reason to deport you from the bastion of free speech known as the USA was laughable. Now, it's reality.
- N-Krause 1y ago
  I am pretty sure, the people of Netherlands didn't count the chance of a nazi regime invading them in a few years as very high. The question is, is the marginal value that you are gaining from such services worth the risk, even if theoretical, at all. - I don't think so.
- anonymars 1y ago
  > I doubt GP has any real reason to fear imminent ethnic persecution Why do you doubt that given the very obvious ethnic persecution going on in the US right now against immigrants, especially Hispanics? Like, okay, "Ian Butler" in particular doesn't sound terribly Hispanic, but I think that's splitting hairs on the larger point

vintermann 1y ago

Thing is, a fascist government probably isn't bother to use DNA to make sure they got the right guy. To them, if you look like a useful guy to blame, they'll blame you whether the evidence fits or not. The various "deterrence" effects of punishing wrongdoers don't really rely on the punished actually being guilty, it only relies on people thinking they're guilty. You can see right now with the mass deportations, evidence and making a watertight case aren't priorities once you get to this point. So I think the author's point stand, that there's little additional risk in some private company having your SNPs. The question is, is it worth it? I'd say, unless you (or a relative you want to help) are into genealogy, it's not worth it, even if the risk is small. But genealogy is fun. It's also, I think, something that can be deeply meaningful for almost anyone. Because, do you have all answers to what's important in life? Probably not, I hope? If you haven't, aren't you interested in what answers your own ancestors implicitly (through the lives they lived) gave to the big questions in life? It's commonly said, "those who learn nothing from history are doomed to repeat it" etc. Might that not be true on an immediate, personal level too? History is more than grand politics, it's also the lives of normal people. And who could you learn most from, if not the people who are most similar to you? That's my pitch for doing genealogy as a hobby... Now, it should be said, genetic genealogy is a pretty small part of genealogy, unless you're unfortunate with adoptions etc. in your family. Even for that, I'd say there are better options than 23andMe, I do not see personally have my SNP data there. Point is, for all things, security is a trade-off, about which risks are worth it and for what gain.

mac-mc 1y ago

Partial DNA like 23&me does is so cheap to measure now, something like $20 wholesale and even less if you have very large scales, with a one time requirement to collect. In a decade, whole genome will be similarly cheap, it's $100-$200 wholesale now. Such a hypothetical fascist government can make it a mandatory requirement to be a resident in a country or similar and justify it on crime prevention like they usually like to do.