[iypx]

Imagine you're 38 years old, you go like a normal person to a normal persons job interview.

Now your new employer obviously doesn't have access to your DNA, but he has an active subscription to "NaturalCheck(tm)whatever" which does have access to most people's DNAs.

Sorry, we can't hire you, your NaturalCheck came back as red.

You call NaturalCheck, after getting tossed through 2-3 support staff you finally learn your dna has some markers for some kind of cancer. Welcome to a new world.

P.S. If you think this is unrealistic: Credit check? Credit score? I see people have no problem with this stuff...

[mcculley]

"Under Title II of GINA, it is illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information." (https://www.eeoc.gov/genetic-information-discrimination)

Potential employers also have photos of me that indicate my skin color. We have laws against discrimination over some attributes.

[ceejayoz]

That's what "poor culture fit" is for.

Technically illegal and enforcably illegal are not the same. People with pregnancies or disabilities get fired all the time; as long as they're not putting "we're firing you for getting prengant" in writing somewhere, chances are they get away with it.

[mcculley]

That criminals can commit crimes does not change the fact that this personal data will be easily found. I am still unconvinced that it is the most "sensitive" personal data.

[sascha_sl]

There are many thing that are illegal on paper, but are done every day in practice, especially with anti-discrimination laws. You need to be very blatant about your discrimination.

[mcculley]

We all know that illegal discrimination happens. I was replying to the notion that this is a "new world". We have been living in that world for quite a while now. (That law was passed in 2008.)

[cute_boi]

Over speeding is also illegal. Yet, we see a lot of people committing it.

Same here, they will say they care about equal rights, but in reality they oust pregnant ladies, old peoples etc..

[mcculley]

Potential future employers will easily get a copy of my DNA if they want one. I am not arguing that discrimination is wrong. I am arguing that DNA is not the most "sensitive" personal data.

[ceejayoz]

> Potential future employers will easily get a copy of my DNA if they want one.

They should be forbidden from doing so. Not forbidden from using it for discrimination; forbidden from obtaining or posessing or sequencing an employee's DNA without their express consent, even via a third party.

> I am arguing that DNA is not the most "sensitive" personal data.

"The most" is debatable, and to some extent a matter of opinion. "One of the most" is hard to argue. It's highly personal information.

[mcculley]

>> Potential future employers will easily get a copy of my DNA if they want one.

>They should be forbidden from doing so. Not forbidden from using it for discrimination; forbidden from obtaining or posessing or sequencing an employee's DNA without their express consent, even via a third party.

I am imagining that sequencing will be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will be like Facebook glasses (or whatever they are called now). Restaurants will sequence food to ensure provenance and quality. Environments will be sampling the air looking for viruses. Toilets will sequence whatever goes into them to find pathogens, both at the service of their owners and their users. I am not saying this is good. I am saying it is inevitable. Not tomorrow, but it's coming. Given that, I consider the personal data I have choice over to be more sensitive.

[mcculley]

>> I am arguing that DNA is not the most "sensitive" personal data.

>"The most" is debatable, and to some extent a matter of opinion. "One of the most" is hard to argue. It's highly personal information.

Agreed. I am arguing with the statement as written in the article.