51–60 of 91 posts
Can one even truly delete their DNA from 23andMe? Wouldn't deleting someone's DNA require deleting not only the existing record, but also the record from all historical back-ups too? What is to say 23andMe just doesn't flip a bit in their database and claim one's DNA is (soft) deleted?
That feels really risky. If your DNA is preserved, could a replica of you appear decades later?
Can one even truly delete their DNA from 23andMe? Wouldn't deleting someone's DNA require deleting not only the existing record, but also the record from all historical back-ups too? What is to say 23andMe just doesn't flip a bit in their database and claim one's DNA is (soft) deleted?
Well, GDPR compliance is one thing. It could be very expensive if you have European customers and get caught doing this.
I do worry about my data with them, but when I think about the worst-case scenario - you will not get insured (or have high rates) because you have {some genetic condition}.. it seems just as likely that they will simply require my DNA to apply for insurance. (or get my DNA from a blood test within their system, etc.). The obvious solution is with legislation for transparency and better health care system.
The analogy I have used in the past is this fear is like thinking that health insurance companies were more likely to buy the old Marlboro Miles database rather than just making detailing your smoking history a required part of the application process. If these companies have the legal clearance to use DNA data, why would they be satisfied only having secondhand access to that data for a relatively small subset of th…
‘You said on your application you don’t smoke, but on x data dump it shows you do. Por que?’ Or just deny your claim for that reason, and make you fight it.
i'm curious, what's the worst-case scenario if one were to put their whole DNA data exposed publicly? would a future civilization re-make your image? or are there societal benefits?
what's the best case scenario?
I did the 23andme thing years ago (foolishly or not, I found it interesting), and everything on there at the time and when I checked recently said I had no markers for anything. They are very pro-active in reminding you all over the app/website and for each condition they track that they only track a few markers so the results are obviously not really that predictive of anything, and that practicing a healthy lifestyle (whatever your genetic markers) is the most important thing to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 emp…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what you show, people encrypt their genome before uploading data on some server, and then scientists can work on the data. How are scientists able to work on encrypted genomes?
Homomorphic encryption, presumably? It's not impossible. But I also think it's overkill. Also, I don't know of good open source software that lets me do the kind of analysis I want even on non-encrypted data.
That would not be very comforting, this would mean that even encrypted, we can know stuff from the encrypted form, which kinds of defeat the purpose unless I'm missing something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 gu…
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 rel…
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.