[Real_S]

I can send someone to follow you around to see where you go. Therefore, you do not mind if your GPS data is public?

Now compare the cost of hacking into a database to the cost of obtaining millions of genomes by physically taking genetic material and then sequencing it. Then consider that your DNA is yours for the rest of your life.

Simply because data can be obtained by some means does not make protecting that data useless.

[streb-lo]

No, that's a bad analogy. Following someone is manpower intensive. A better analogy would be sending someone to observe your hair color -- do you mind if that's public?

As the value of DNA increases, people will collect it. Restaurants, washrooms, your employer, airlines, Uber etc. all could have trivially easy access to your DNA if they choose to.

[missosoup]

It's illegal to follow someone around to collect their location data. It's a pretty good analogy.

Just because there is 'trivial' access to certain attributes of people doesn't mean that it's legal to capture those attributes, and even if you do capture them, they're worthless on the legal market. E.g. see SF ban on facial recognition.

[streb-lo]

Like you say, legal barriers can only prevent things that rely on a legal market, like insurance carriers from discriminating against people's genetic makeup. Against genetic weaponization and other state-sponsored uses it would be a bit like banning nuclear bombs -- a great idea for everyone but a foolish one for each individual state.

And that's only if such legal barriers are even constructed which I'm not sure they will be. Look how the privacy battle has turned out thus far.

[JoeAltmaier]

Really? Public surveillance is explicitly allowed without warrant.