[tremere]

From a decision-making standpoint it seems difficult to argue that you made the wrong choice. At the time when the $99 kits were ubiquitous, 23andme seemed like a solid, reputable company.

Back then, few people had the mindset of, "if they own my data, they own me." But we're starting to see it take hold.

[stcroixx]

I don't know about that. Geneology has been a hobby for me for a couple decades and I'd say only tech illiterates were willing to trust 23 and me. I've never seen any company I've worked at do well enough with security that I'd trust them with my DNA and with the constant data breaches across the industry with zero consequential penalties, this seems like the norm. Have you ever seen security done right anywhere? In my experience, it's always the bare minimum. Banks are about as close as it gets and that's only because they have higher obligations than most.

[valedan]

Gave them my DNA last year, am not tech illiterate. It was cool to see the results, though not life-changing. I don't regret the decision - I don't understand why I should care that my DNA sequence is on a shady website somewhere. I don't understand the threat model people have here - how will my life be negatively impacted by this?

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>Have you ever seen security done right anywhere? In my experience, it's always the bare minimum.

Google is pretty good at security, no?

https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/management-tools/lear...

[SoftTalker]

> 23andme seemed like a solid, reputable company.

One thing I've come to realize over the past couple of decades is that with internet/tech/VC startups in particular, the statements they make about goals, philosophy, core values, and ethics are subject to change as needed to secure more funding, increase revenue, or in case of acquisition.

You really cannot trust what any company says until they've been in business at least ten years with an unbroken record of responsible, trustworthy operation. And even then it can all change with a merger.

[mixmastamyk]

In other words, you cannot fully trust a company. As long it is a collection of brains that may change membership at any time.

[raible]

Well, maybe. I for one _absolutely_ didn't participate b.c. I didn't want my DNA and personally identifying information owned by any company. I can't imagine that there aren't many others like me.

I would, however, love to send my DNA to a company if they could provide the results without knowing any information about me whatsoever. For instance: I would be more than willing to buy the kit with cash and send it back with a burner email. Has anyone heard of such a service?

[verisimi]

But then, without all that extra data, they would actually have to do some dna testing, rather than than determining your likely background heuristically.

[kelipso]

I read somewhere a while ago that the FBI gets free access to the data, which was enough reason for me. This is just icing on the cake. Though more than likely a few of my relatives sent it there already, so not that it matters anyway.

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

There is a reason Pootin, and some other world leaders, have a black case carried behind them by a member of security team. This is to collect poo so no genetic information falls into the vials of the enemy.

[heavyset_go]

> Back then, few people had the mindset of, "if they own my data, they own me." But we're starting to see it take hold.

People have been screaming this from the rooftops even back then.

[whywhywouldyou]

This is hilarious, and completely absolves everyone from bad decision making like this. My immediate reaction to 23andme was "there's no way in hell I'm sending something as private and personal as my DNA to a private company".

Why? Because there's no telling what happens to it. It's a failure of judgement to believe that just because a company is reputable today that it will be reputable tomorrow. Companies change owners, they change board members, they get bought and sold. And _hacked_.

So let's stop this nonsense of giving everyone a free pass because it was a "solid, reputable company". Maybe we can give grandma a pass, but someone on a technically minded forum such as HN should know better.

[3seashells]

Good thing it's not even a personal decision to make.. your brother, sister, mother, father, can make that decision for you..

[mopenstein]

Paranoid me can imagine a situation where some political enemy needs eliminated and a fall guy needs found. Sprinkle a little 23andme acquired DNA on the scene and some random citizen gets convicted.

[southernplaces7]

>Back then, few people had the mindset of, "if they own my data, they own me." But we're starting to see it take hold.

Really? You're being either very generous or very naive here, because even back then it seemed blindingly obvious that it's a bad bloody idea to trust a tech company of nearly any kind to safeguard your data securely or honestly. Then double the paranoia when it comes to your genetic information. For somebody working in the tech space in particular to have not been be cynical about this is plainly absurd.

[fsckboy]

From a decision-making standpoint it seems difficult to argue that you made the wrong choice. At the time when the $99 kits were ubiquitous, 23andme seemed like a solid, reputable company.

I am interested in genetics, but I didn't trust google, and I trusted a google spouse company even less (it's like John Lennon's Google, and Yoko Ono's 23andMe, when I didn't trust Lennon to begin with) and my data hasn't been spilled. Half of you are thinking of all sorts of epithets to call me, but fact is, I was right about 23andMe. From a decision-making standpoint, slam dunk for me and anybody who listened to me. It was not an unusual position to take. "What. Could. Go. Wrong?"

(I'm fully aware they probably already have my data from numerous blood tests I've taken from normal medical checkups, etc. but what could I have done about that?)

[wayfinder]

I don’t know. I trust Google the most. They’re basically an aimless company with the strongest technically secure infrastructure I’ve seen with the strongest privacy policies implemented (just read about their infra). I think people give in to what people say versus say what they do. Just because Google runs an ad company doesn’t mean shit. What they’ve done with your data (their “actions”) for the past 25 years means way more (they absolutely do nothing with your data — in fact, they seem to completely waste it).

The link between 23andme and Google is tangential at best. Anne Wojcicki and Sergey Brin were married and that’s it, but they are completely two different people.

I have no idea how you’d ever consider 23andme a reputable company. Reputation comes from 20+ years of history — your actions, not what you say. 23andme is not even 20 years old yet — how can you trust something that young?

[devjab]

I forgot which company I used, but part of their deal was that you had the ability to delete your DNA data. Which I guess would’ve come in handy for a lot of people with 23andme. If you had chosen to do so of course.