• originalucifer
    link
    fedilink
    171 year ago

    kinda inevitable. with as fast as dna can be sequenced now… we are publicly broadcasting this information. how can we realistically protect something we broadcast. its kinda like having your photo taken in public. at some point, its gunna happen.

    do you have an expectation of privacy on data you publicly broadcast 24/7 everywhere all the time? i dont think so. i think its silly to try.

    its only a matter a time before most of the world is captured into a continually aggregated genetic database of unique individuals which will inevitably all link back together.

    are there going to be bad actors? yep. lets prosecute those mofos, but this kind of aggregations is far from evil or wrong or… stoppable.

    • @grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Holy shit, GATTACA was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not an instruction manual!

      • originalucifer
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        i call this the ‘tipper gore affect’. aka, ‘you see what you want to see’

        im kinda hopin we dont go down the full-on genetic editing path as they did in the movie… maybe just hardcore embryo defect filtering for know diseases/errors

        • @mayoi@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t understand why people are so against this. Literally anyone whose relative died from a “rare” disease wouldn’t care if instead they were born in a time where it was prevented via genetic editing removing the offending genes.

          Genes… Blood who cares? Total strangers from opposite sides of the globe can love eachother and two family members from same parents, of same blood, can kill eachother, it’s irrelevant.

          Humans did this sort of thing to everything around themselves and it has done nothing but benefitted us. You think apples have this much flesh to bite into because god made them that way? No, literally we made them this way.

          Selective breeding is very primitive form of genetic editing, it’s still done today even, for example in dogs, and everyone loves dogs for some reason, even those that can’t breathe properly because of how they’re bred to be.

          What is it that causes people to think it’s an abomination only when they’re the subject of it?

        • @grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          It’s not even the genetic editing that was the biggest issue, IMO. It was the pervasive surveillance and discrimination that was even worse.

          • originalucifer
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            yep, good point. it would be nice to solve for those issues before theyre applicable to dna. humans still suck in a lot of ways

    • @thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      how can we realistically protect something we broadcast.

      With appropriate privacy laws and security measures. A smartphone is publicly broadcasting information, in that any other person could receive the radio transmissions emitted from them. But such eavesdropping would be illegal in most cases, and is mostly encrypted to hinder bad actors who don’t obey such laws.

      It’s important we act now to ensure there are suitable privacy provisions in place now for all biometrics, before such things as mass DNA collection and sequencing are practical. Once such technology is available, perhaps we will also have to adapt our behaviour in public to prevent leakage of unprotected biometric assets.

      Time to start advocating for biometric privacy, and investing in bodysuits and hair nets.

      • originalucifer
        link
        fedilink
        -21 year ago

        you are completely ignoring the fact that a global genetic database is not only in progress, it is inevitable.

        you cannot protect something you not only broadcast to the entire world with every breathe, but are also incapable of stopping or encrypting that data, or breaking its chain back to the other humans to which you got yours from.

        we absolutely should protect humans from corporations looking to abuse this data, but you need to understand. its public data, and there is zero you can do about its existence or aggregation.

  • @OhmsLawn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 year ago

    I bought a pair of them. The lady and I thought it over for years and finally ended up shit-canning them. It just didn’t feel right.

  • @Fullest@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    151 year ago

    This isn’t even new. Why are we posting things from over two years ago and treating it like some sort of revelation?

  • R0cket_M00se
    link
    fedilink
    English
    371 year ago

    I’m pretty sure they were upfront about their intended use to help research personalized medication. This isn’t some conspiracy.

  • probablyaCat
    link
    fedilink
    19
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah this doesn’t bother me. And I tend to be a somewhat paranoid person. But I got convinced to do one of these by my partner. And so far, no regrets. They had some family surprises, but they don’t regret it either. If they make some cool new meds with my DNA (honestly even if I have only the knowledge that they made meds from 23andme) I’m just going to go around saying hey that might have my DNA in it.

    Just wait until you guys find out what they’re really doing is cloning us all to replace us with mindless worker drones. I accidentally met mine. They were nice. Bought me a coffee. Then I got real sleepy and woke up half buried in the woods. Real strange day.

      • probablyaCat
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        Yeah I saw when that happened. I don’t do the open sharing. But it is easy to identify me as a Jew plenty of other ways. Including online with things attached to my real name. So it is what it is.

        • @Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          20
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If problems arise, you can always ditch your name but not your DNA. Obviously, those are worst case scenarios but I’m personally worried about DNA being used by insurance companies, being coupled to credit scores, used for higher education admittance, etc

  • @bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1211 year ago

    This seems like corporate whitewashing of all the insidious things they will actually sell user data for. Like “yeah we sell user data but only so we can make a cure for cancer” meanwhile they are selling it to organizations that are building biometric monitoring databases straight out of Minority Report.

      • @SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        171 year ago

        This entire conspiracy theory falls apart once you realize there is more than one group trying to cure cancer, and have cured multiple cancers, as curing cancer is vastly more profitable than treating it.

        Once your cancer is cured, you no longer need treatment, and you won’t seek treatment if there’s a cure.

        Cancer cures (and eventually, vaccinations) are an arms race, and only efficacy matters

        • @piecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Except companies aren’t the ones curing cancer, academics are… Companies will gladly use the free R&D, productize, and make a quick profit.

  • @TryingToEscapeTarkov@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    101 year ago

    I never understood the appeal of the business in the first place. Why would you care who your great great great grandpa was? I don’t even care who my Grandpa was.

    • @vagrantprodigy@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      391 year ago

      It’s commonly used by Adoptees to find their biological family. This can be important for a few reasons, including finally getting accurate family health history.

      • @big_slap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        i had a coworker from my last job find his birth mother through one of these dna websites. the happiness he had on his face when he came back after finally meeting his biological family made me think about 1) how fortunate I am and 2) how many people have used these services to connect to long lost family members.

        the good outweighs the bad for now, imo.

        • @vagrantprodigy@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 year ago

          No question. It took me 6 years and thousands of hours to find mine (distant matches only, and birth father was dead, and birth mother was also adopted, which added an extra 2 years to the search). If it wasn’t for DNA I would never have located her though.

    • @JustCopyingOthers@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      About 10 years ago they provided medical data from the samples. I used 23 And Me too confirm that a health problem I’d recently been diagnosed with was hereditary. At the time I remember being asked if my sample could be used to aid the type of research the OP talks about and I agreed to it.

      A couple of years ago, I think 23 And Me was bought out by Virgin Healthcare, at that point I asked them to destroy all my data was worried about it being used to increase the cost of or preclude health insurance.

    • Alien Nathan Edward
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      Why would you care who your great great great grandpa was?

      I was able to find out that my great grandfather was adopted, and meet a whole new wing of my family. I didn’t even do the test, my aunt did.

  • @muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    361 year ago

    Not suprised. Also not suprised they have been handing this data over to law enforcement for years now. Its no just to track down people whove taken said test but also people who are related even distantly. The fbi estimates they can use dna evidance to single dowm the possible people to 2 or 3 out of the entiriry of the us

    • @14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      The fbi estimates they can use dna evidance to single dowm the possible people to 2 or 3 out of the entiriry of the us

      i am not sure what you mean by this sentence, but you probably misunderstood something.

      dna doesn’t single down anything, as in it would help you track something. it tells you if two genetic profiles are a match (that means they come from same person), or that they are genetically similar and how distant they are - that tells you that the profiles come from x times removed relatives. after that, it is down to normal police work.

      here is veritasium video about how they used this technology to find and convict the infamous golden state killer - https://piped.video/watch?v=KT18KJouHWg

        • @14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          with big enough database you simple have every single person in it. that still doesn’t back up the quote i disputed in any way. can you find source of the quote? i’d be interested to see the original.

          • @fishos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            They caught the Bay Area Strangler(or whatever his title was) by finding a dna relative match on one of these services and using that to narrow down suspects. DNA can absolutely be used to narrow things down without just having a direct 1:1 match saying it’s THAT person.

            • @14th_cylon@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              7
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              they “narrowed it down” to about 1000 people. that is the case covered by video i linked in my comment above.

              the sentence The fbi estimates they can use dna evidance to single dowm the possible people to 2 or 3 out of the entiriry of the us is still nonsense

              • Sippy Cup
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                It’s not exclusively DNA they’re using.

                It never was exclusively DNA.

                There are location, sex, age, and other factors to consider that help narrow it down. You could have 1000 close matches, but only half a dozen or so that could actually have committed the crime, and only a few of them that fit the profile.