[thankthunk]

> I was told that I could not opt out and that the sample becomes the property of the State and there is nothing I could do about it.

That is so disgusting. For all the talk about individuality and liberalism, it's amazing how liberal societies are so authoritarian and controlling.

If you don't own your DNA, then what do you own? But I guess big brother knows what's best for us.

[JeremyBanks]

DNA is a pretty hard thing to keep private. I wouldn’t think of it as one of the last things you lose right before liberty.

[zo1]

Well, when you don't own the majority of the fruits of your own labor, then I'd say your "DNA" is a drop in the bucket in comparison. But yeah, precisely how you feel is how Libertarians and other actual free-minded individuals feel about concepts such as taxation.

Personally, I don't see DNA as that intrinsic or important as others do. It's just a piece of information about the composition of my body. Sure, if they could completely clone my brain and the essence of what I am, then I could get behind something like this. But as is, I'd just be peeved that someone gets to "use" my DNA. Same way I get peeved that Google/Facebook "use" my browsing habits to train their ML algorithms.

[jurassic]

I’m most worried that in the future our DNA could be used by health insurers the way financial institutions use credit scores. Those with genetic predisposition to expensive conditions might never be insureable.

[maxerickson]

That would be society doing that, not just insurance companies.

Just like before the ACA it was society at large that didn't worry too much about people being dropped from insurance. Sure, people moralize about how awful it is, but then they take the policy with the lower rate instead of the better underwriting.