2 ms·
Hi, OP here. I guess the trick is not submitting DNA in a way which makes collection and sifting scalable. Sending people out to collect DNA would be expensive
by bencollier49 13y ago
Hi, OP here. I guess the trick is not submitting DNA in a way which makes collection and sifting scalable. Sending people out to collect DNA would be expensive, so less likely to be used routinely.
- uncoder0 13y agoHey! Still pre-coffee so I'm glad my argument made some sense. Does this mean participating in government run healthcare and blood donation breaks your threat model?
- bencollier49 13y agoInteresting question. Let's say I have a clearly defined threat model. I rate the chances of an existing database being misused as higher than the chances of a screening service which looks for one or two SNPs being secretly misused to collect entire genomes. The number of health workers who'd have to collude to operate the latter would be enormous, and it would leak like a sieve. We're not dealing with the government from "1984" here, it's more like the one from "Brazil" (the film, not the country!).
- jnbiche 13y agoHi, thoughtful post. As you state in your post, the issue is not what's happening now, it's what could happen in N years from now with your genetic information that is being passively collected, stored, and selectively shared by the NSA and (probably) the GHCQ. So while I share your concerns, I don't think going with a UK company is going to afford you much more data protection.