I will be waiting until I can analyze my DNA myself, without handing it over to a company that is going to do whatever it wants to with it. We are not yet able to fully appreciate how valuable DNA is, and yet everyone seems delighted to pay companies to take it from them.
Perhaps they will be less delighted when they are convicted of a crime based off of a false positive, have their DNA shared with Facebook to Improve Their User Experience ™, or have their DNA made public after yet another security breach where it is left on an unsecured server.
Remember that your DNA is very valuable, literally. Those who have noticed recent progress in genomics should realize how valuable it would be to a competent advertising company, allowing them to profile and predict users with significantly higher personal accuracy, even if all they are doing is performing basic GWASs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study).
People can get your DNA without your consent already, as your DNA gets onto every object you touch. The most valuable part about sending stuff to a DNA company is your consent, especially considering that sequencing costs have a super-moore's law like cost reduction. Once they have your consent they can share it, sell it, rent it, to recruiters for ad targeting, insurances, etc etc. Without consent they'd get onto dubious legal territory, if e.g. Amazon took gene samples from refunds. But maybe it'll just become part of their TOS, you not being able to opt out unless you don't want to refund your stuff to Amazon.
Not sure if the ability to sequence DNA yourself is really beneficial to privacy, after all that allows people to sequence the DNA of many people around them.
Counterargument: Consented mass datasets of DNA annotated with useful data (e.g. health records) are valuable. Your DNA by itself is pretty much worthless. There's a reason you pay 23andme to sequence it rather than them paying you.
It basically doesn't matter if you share your DNA or not-- if your siblings or extended family share their DNA, then a malicious actor knows almost as much about you as they want to. This is how Osama bin Laden was found, as well as the golden state killer [1].
Maybe justified in those cases, but if it's abuse you're worried about, nothing but extremely stringent laws have a hope of protecting you. Probably not even that.
I learned recently that the state of California collects DNA and blood samples from every newborn, post-1983, and stores it long-term somewhere. It's made available to law enforcement and researchers through some process or other.
You cannot opt-out but you can request that the samples be destroyed. They'll even send you a letter assuring you that it's been destroyed. How kind of them.
FWIW, 23andMe will actually delete your data if you send in a GDPR deletion request. I worked there, and half the company put in a 1-2 month effort into making sure deletions worked correctly, including residual data.
> 23andMe chooses to use all practical legal and administrative resources to resist requests from law enforcement, and we do not share customer data with any public databases, or with entities that may increase the risk of law enforcement access.
> Contents of communications and any data relating to the DNA of an Ancestry user will be released only pursuant to a valid search warrant from a government agency with proper jurisdiction.
The purpose of Ancestry (and FamilyTreeDNA) is ancestry research. You don't go to Ancestry to get your DNA tested for diseases. You go there for ancestry research.
> As specified in FamilyTreeDNA's Terms of Service, law enforcement can only receive information not already accessible to the standard user by providing FamilyTreeDNA with valid legal process such as a subpoena or a search warrant.
> Additionally, FamilyTreeDNA customers have the option to opt out of law enforcement matching entirely. If customers do opt out, they can still see their family matches but are excluded from being seen by law enforcement.
This does not make sense to me. I know that DNA can be taken physically from an individual with a warrant, so ostensibly that would hold with FamilyTree as well.
So: if one opts out, what is one opting out of? FamilyTree can't be suggesting that they'll withhold evidence because a customer opted out, can they?
"law enforcement can only receive information not already accessible to the standard user" = LE asking FTDNA for your DNA specifically
"law enforcement matching" = LE uploading suspect DNA to the service and looking for family members, who they will then contact for further investigation of relatives, which does not require a warrant.
due to a recent policy change, LE is obligated to identify itself as such before performing the latter type of search. you can ask FTDNA to exclude your information when a LE account looks for family matches.
You traditionally can't get a warrant to get the DNA of the cousin of a suspect in a crime. With a centralized DNA registry you can get partial matches. So perhaps those are opt-out?
I personally feel that the next great privacy scandal is going to come from one of these DNA companies being hacked, or abused by law enforcement, etc. And we all will have seen it coming.
The issue, of course, is that unlike Facebook you can't just delete your DNA.
I don't think there is a huge difference with Facebook. You cannot delete your face (well, you can, but at a huge cost, with facial surgery).
So when your photos are leaked, you can't do much about it, deleting your Facebook account won't help here.
> “If FamilyTreeDNA can help prevent violent crimes, save lives, or bring closure to families, then we feel the company has a moral responsibility to do so.”
The FBI (and a variety of other organizations) can and will use the information for any and all purposes imaginable, and a number that are unimaginable.
As a family member of someone who sends in a FamilyTreeDNA kit, you're powerless to opt out. An implicit, traceable link to your own DNA suddenly enters the system against your will, and you have no recourse. Suddenly you become part of this this experiment in mass surveillance.
The people of rich democracies are way too trusting of their governments and don't read enough history. Saying that this service will be used to " help prevent violent crimes, save lives, or bring closure to families" is naive at best and something monstrous at worst.
Some uses are easy to predict. Genocide, for example. Others, no so much.
- Imagine a Bird-type gig economy in which thousands of cash-strapped people are hired (possibly by FamilyTreeDNA under contract from the FBI) to swab public places and objects for DNA, while the company compiles the results into a massive internet of DNA things. Now imagine that database being linked to a face-recognition system using public cameras.
- Imagine being turned down for a job because someone happened to get a peek at your FamilyTReeDNA profile and noticed a marker for mental illness.
- Imagine being sent to prison because some jackass politician starts believing in criminal DNA markers and you fit the bill.
I'll give credit to Bennett Greenspan for this. He knows how to wrap a massive invasion of privacy in the sweet-smelling blanket of saving us all from the criminal boogeyman.
Gattaca was prescient. It was a glimpse of what our future will look like if things continue this way unchecked. While those of us paying attention will find it terrifying, the majority won't notice or be bothered by it I fear.
>Saying that this service will be used to " help prevent violent crimes, save lives, or bring closure to families" is naive at best and something monstrous at worst.
It will because it has been used to do just that.
> Genocide, for example
It's not like humans have had difficulty committing genocide in the past without DNA databases. The Rwandan genocide, for example, was done primarily with machetes and coordinated by radio. Similarly the rest of your hypothetical situations can be done without DNA testing if society wished to act in that manner. I don't see much weight in your scenarios at least compared with actual murderers and rapists going to jail.
I wonder what is the minimum % of people that need to have their DNA sequenced in order for any human to be able to be identified. The police cases mentioned in the past hint that we are already.
As a person who worked in a genetics lab for a while, those who are concerned about privacy should do the following: find a smaller lab and tell them from the get go you want all the data, and for them to delete it after sequencing, then find a third party to do the data analysis.
With sequencing at less than 1k these days, you should be able to do it for sub 3k with the analysis while protecting your privacy.
This is the reason not to ever use any of these scummy companies. What next? Should I sign over the rights to my DNA to them too so they can charge me for cell division and reproduction? Monsanto already does this. Fuck these people and their moralistic bullshit. It is our moral responsibility to not use such services if we at all care about privacy, security, and our own well being. Even DNA isn't 100% accurate. Do they think it's our responsibility to go to prison when our DNA is mistakenly matched to a crime scene too? Seriously, fuck these companies.
This isn't really necessary. Make a DNA database of crimnals. That guy who killed a child and left his sperm behind? He is bound to slip up and get arrested for something sooner or later.
No need for the FBI to start fishing for everyone's DNA.
England shows that "criminal" DNA databases expand as much as they can.
Now if you're arrested, not necessarily convicted, you'll have your DNA taken and kept on file for a few years. Note that someone had to take England to the EU court of human rights to get this changed so that people found not guilty, or people not charged, won't have their DNA kept indefinitely.
'Moral responsibility' is a very interesting choice of words given the history of this institution. But, feels like history isn't used for forecasting doom if it causes short-term inconvenience.
I wonder how many men are worried that this sort of matching is going to turn up children they didn't know they had fathered. That situation is a lot more common than cold case serial killers.
Those sort of errors cause all sorts of more serious trouble in another way:
Men finding out they didn’t father children they thought they did.
I worked at a genetics lab, and day one training was that this happened all the time, and that we absolutely must not let people in medical studies know we’d found a mismatch. (In fact, we actively avoided noticing such things.)
Same. Law enforcement already has plenty of tools to implement totalitarianism, should that be the goal of the political class. If we are in the dark universe where this eventually comes to pass, a DNA database is not going to make much of a difference in one way or another. On the other hand, in the world where we have good leaders, this tool offers a material delta in the finding and convicting of dangerous criminals.
Sadly it’s not that simple. You don’t have to use it, but unless you can stop your family as well they will have most of what they need from you that way.
[+] [-] ve55|7 years ago|reply
Perhaps they will be less delighted when they are convicted of a crime based off of a false positive, have their DNA shared with Facebook to Improve Their User Experience ™, or have their DNA made public after yet another security breach where it is left on an unsecured server.
Remember that your DNA is very valuable, literally. Those who have noticed recent progress in genomics should realize how valuable it would be to a competent advertising company, allowing them to profile and predict users with significantly higher personal accuracy, even if all they are doing is performing basic GWASs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study).
[+] [-] est31|7 years ago|reply
Not sure if the ability to sequence DNA yourself is really beneficial to privacy, after all that allows people to sequence the DNA of many people around them.
[+] [-] cjbprime|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tbabb|7 years ago|reply
Maybe justified in those cases, but if it's abuse you're worried about, nothing but extremely stringent laws have a hope of protecting you. Probably not even that.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/27...
[+] [-] scruple|7 years ago|reply
You cannot opt-out but you can request that the samples be destroyed. They'll even send you a letter assuring you that it's been destroyed. How kind of them.
[+] [-] marcell|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitforger|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhb|7 years ago|reply
Also a true positive.
[+] [-] shawnz|7 years ago|reply
> 23andMe chooses to use all practical legal and administrative resources to resist requests from law enforcement, and we do not share customer data with any public databases, or with entities that may increase the risk of law enforcement access.
https://www.23andme.com/law-enforcement-guide/
And AncestryDNA:
> Contents of communications and any data relating to the DNA of an Ancestry user will be released only pursuant to a valid search warrant from a government agency with proper jurisdiction.
https://www.ancestry.ca/cs/legal/lawenforcement
[+] [-] tempodox|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unreal37|7 years ago|reply
The entire purpose is sharing.
[+] [-] rplst8|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] i_am_proteus|7 years ago|reply
> Additionally, FamilyTreeDNA customers have the option to opt out of law enforcement matching entirely. If customers do opt out, they can still see their family matches but are excluded from being seen by law enforcement.
This does not make sense to me. I know that DNA can be taken physically from an individual with a warrant, so ostensibly that would hold with FamilyTree as well.
So: if one opts out, what is one opting out of? FamilyTree can't be suggesting that they'll withhold evidence because a customer opted out, can they?
[+] [-] nyolfen|7 years ago|reply
"law enforcement matching" = LE uploading suspect DNA to the service and looking for family members, who they will then contact for further investigation of relatives, which does not require a warrant.
due to a recent policy change, LE is obligated to identify itself as such before performing the latter type of search. you can ask FTDNA to exclude your information when a LE account looks for family matches.
[+] [-] ikeyany|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kharms|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dannykwells|7 years ago|reply
The issue, of course, is that unlike Facebook you can't just delete your DNA.
[+] [-] flycaliguy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elcomet|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Real_S|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dilippkumar|7 years ago|reply
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY
[+] [-] est31|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidkuhta|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apo|7 years ago|reply
The FBI (and a variety of other organizations) can and will use the information for any and all purposes imaginable, and a number that are unimaginable.
As a family member of someone who sends in a FamilyTreeDNA kit, you're powerless to opt out. An implicit, traceable link to your own DNA suddenly enters the system against your will, and you have no recourse. Suddenly you become part of this this experiment in mass surveillance.
The people of rich democracies are way too trusting of their governments and don't read enough history. Saying that this service will be used to " help prevent violent crimes, save lives, or bring closure to families" is naive at best and something monstrous at worst.
Some uses are easy to predict. Genocide, for example. Others, no so much.
- Imagine a Bird-type gig economy in which thousands of cash-strapped people are hired (possibly by FamilyTreeDNA under contract from the FBI) to swab public places and objects for DNA, while the company compiles the results into a massive internet of DNA things. Now imagine that database being linked to a face-recognition system using public cameras.
- Imagine being turned down for a job because someone happened to get a peek at your FamilyTReeDNA profile and noticed a marker for mental illness.
- Imagine being sent to prison because some jackass politician starts believing in criminal DNA markers and you fit the bill.
I'll give credit to Bennett Greenspan for this. He knows how to wrap a massive invasion of privacy in the sweet-smelling blanket of saving us all from the criminal boogeyman.
[+] [-] time0ut|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] treis|7 years ago|reply
It will because it has been used to do just that.
> Genocide, for example
It's not like humans have had difficulty committing genocide in the past without DNA databases. The Rwandan genocide, for example, was done primarily with machetes and coordinated by radio. Similarly the rest of your hypothetical situations can be done without DNA testing if society wished to act in that manner. I don't see much weight in your scenarios at least compared with actual murderers and rapists going to jail.
[+] [-] unreal37|7 years ago|reply
There should be NO surprise that going to FamilyTreeDNA (or Ancestry.com) results in your records being public to other members.
[+] [-] return0|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwern|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 420codebro|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] arminiusreturns|7 years ago|reply
With sequencing at less than 1k these days, you should be able to do it for sub 3k with the analysis while protecting your privacy.
[+] [-] mnm1|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chillacy|7 years ago|reply
I admit I chuckled, as someone who finds moral arguments pretty shallow because they tend to depend on what each person thinks is the right thing.
[+] [-] new_guy|7 years ago|reply
All that's gonna do is flag you for priority analysis!
[+] [-] Tsubasachan|7 years ago|reply
No need for the FBI to start fishing for everyone's DNA.
[+] [-] DanBC|7 years ago|reply
Now if you're arrested, not necessarily convicted, you'll have your DNA taken and kept on file for a few years. Note that someone had to take England to the EU court of human rights to get this changed so that people found not guilty, or people not charged, won't have their DNA kept indefinitely.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protection-of-fre...
[+] [-] vignesh_m|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wtdata|7 years ago|reply
When they arrest you? When you are convicted? Convicted in the 1st instance? Upper court?
[+] [-] treis|7 years ago|reply
Or we can arrest the guy before he commits another crime.
[+] [-] nahalay|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfdietz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hedora|7 years ago|reply
Men finding out they didn’t father children they thought they did.
I worked at a genetics lab, and day one training was that this happened all the time, and that we absolutely must not let people in medical studies know we’d found a mismatch. (In fact, we actively avoided noticing such things.)
[+] [-] Madmallard|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oh_sigh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdfasgasdgasdg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _emacsomancer_|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0_gravitas|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] purple-again|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]