[dpiers]

I'm relatively paranoid when it comes to privacy and also did 23andMe for similar reasons.

I stopped thinking of my DNA as a secret when I realized how impossible it is to keep other people from having access to it. Once someone knows it, you cannot change it like a password.

DNA is an anti-secret. You share it everywhere you go and cannot stop. It's no more secret or personal than your shoe size or height.

[stanmancan]

My concern in these services is, at what point in the future does your DNA get weaponized against you? When do you get declined for health insurance, or have jacked up premiums, because the insurance company bought a report from 23andMe that says you have a predisposition to expensive disease?

My DNA isn't a secret, but I don't yet feel comfortable voluntarily handing it over to be indexed by a for profit company that has little to no regulation over what they can do with it.

[efsavage]

I think you mean "at what point in the future does your DNA get weaponized against everyone you're related to?"

I have not done these services because while I would be comfortable accepting the consequences in my remaining years, I have no idea what that would mean downstream for my living relatives, especially my son.

[toomuchtodo]

> When do you get declined for health insurance, or have jacked up premiums, because the insurance company bought a report from 23andMe that says you have a predisposition to expensive disease?

US federal law prohibits this [1].

[1] https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/testing/discrimination

[awb]

Now it does, but it might not be this way in the future. Health insurance companies fought tooth and nail about covering pre-existing conditions. This is just going 1-step prior.

They could easily frame this as "hey 80% of the population who are pretty healthy -- do you like paying extra high rates for this small population of people with a predisposition for really rare, complicated diseases? if we drop this unfair law we could lower your rates by X%".

Not saying it's right or ethical, but that I wouldn't be shocked if healthcare started lobbying hard to get this tweaked.

[wahern]

Laws against murder can change, too. So what?

The interesting thing about modern genetics is that it turns out everybody has some elevated risk for some disease or condition, which means the vast majority of people have an interest in prohibiting genetic discrimination.

[switz]

This might be considered a low quality comment, but I do think it's important to remember (and repeat): laws can change

[toomuchtodo]

Democracy requires constant vigilance.

[stanmancan]

The specific insurance example was just a theoretical example. I'm less concerned about someone trying to kill me, there are much easier ways to do that without targeting me based on my DNA!

[krageon]

Laws are purely a technicality. Especially with the US lobbying situation being the way it is, I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to expect that some bad thing heavily incentivised for won't happen just because it's not allowed now.

[ab_testing]

Well the companies don't need your DNA to decline you health insurance. If that condition appears and you go to the doctor to get it treated, the companies will cover it your first year but then raise your rates so high that you will be forced to find other companies.

[enriquepablo]

DNA is an anti-secret in the same way that digital rights management schemes are an anti-secret. DRM schemes only work through legal support; and in my opinion, legally protecting the secrecy of DNA is much more sensible (from a human pow, rather than from an economic growth pow) than legally protecting the secrets behind DRMs. People can be actively harmed, can be discriminated laboraly for example, if their DNA is public, as opposed to being devoid of some imaginary profits.

[guelo]

You might leave DNA everywhere but that does not tie it back to your identity. The secret is who's DNA it is, not the DNA itself. And that's the secret you pay to give to 23andMe when you sign up. Anywhere you leave your DNA can now be tied back to you. Even if you sign up with a fake identity (which is hard since you have to give them a credit card) 23andMe can find the DNA's relatives that are in their database and that can easily lead back to you.

[awb]

> I stopped thinking of my DNA as a secret when I realized how impossible it is to keep other people from having access to it.

The idea isn't 100% security or nothing, but to make it harder for the data to be exploited.

Lots of our personal data isn't a well kept secret, but I also don't give it to any company that asks for it, unlike my shoe size.

[wahern]

The harder it is to exploit the data, the harder it is to do basic genetic research. There's a fundamental dilemma there. If you don't want to share your data with research organizations, so be it. But calling other people suckers for voluntarily sharing their data means you'd rather live in a world where scientific and medical advancement are stunted.

That's like called open source contributors suckers, as it gives away their labor for free and makes them more susceptible to copyright and patent litigation. Maybe so, but the world is better off for it.

[awb]

I'm just saying don't share your DNA with everyone because you think it's an open secret.

Genetic research is important but pick the lab carefully.

[dillonmckay]

What is your email address and phone number?

[pstuart]

Email is in their contact link (with other stuff). Phone number is likely available with a bit of searching.