[jmcgready]

> In the article there is a quote, “There is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA.“

> This seems a bogus assertion to me. I can imagine many diagnostic health test results that would be more sensitive to leak than DNA (e.g., STD and drug tests).

> DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway.

> Having published my own results (https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/), I really don’t buy into the idea that DNA is the most personal data that can be leaked.

> (Nevertheless, there should be more obvious warnings to customers about how their data will be monetized.)

> In the article there is a quote, “There is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA.“

> This seems a bogus assertion to me. I can imagine many diagnostic health test results that would be more sensitive to leak than DNA (e.g., STD and drug tests).

It's still PHI, and in this case subject to at least the Data Protection Act. The walk-in centers at Gatwick and Heathrow may have tested non-UK citizens. If so, they may run into compliance issues with GDPR or other privacy regs. Not sure how that plays out.

Guess I'll have to wait for the investigation results....

> Having published my own results (https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/), I really don’t buy into the idea that DNA is the most personal data that can be leaked.

Being as (at least in the US) DNA is used as evidence to conclusively identify (or exclude) those accused of crime (i.e. rape kits, etc) I'd say that a court of law would consider it to be essentially personal info.

[mcculley]

I agree it is "personal data". I disagree that it is "more sensitive" than other data.

[peteradio]

When Edgar Sengier amassed Shinkolobwe Uranium prior to the Manhattan project, was the sensitivity less because the bomb did not yet exist?

[mcculley]

I agree that value is added merely by aggregation. Nevertheless, my diagnostic health test results are more sensitive to me than my DNA is. I imagine this is so for the vast majority.

[dane-pgp]

> I imagine this is so for the vast majority.

Even if that is true, societies should still take extra care to protect the interests of minorities, since they typically suffer disproportionate consequences from human rights abuses.

To give a hypothetical example, if someone had Jewish ancestry and also a diagnosis that they had diabetes, I would guess that they'd want the first piece of information to have more protection than the second.

Of course the situation may be different in different countries and for different people (who I am not qualified to speak on behalf of), but I'm just cautioning against seeing DNA as being somehow "neutral".

[mcculley]

This made me think. Yes, I see how in scenarios where there is tribalism-induced discrimination, one would carefully guard ancestry that is not obvious. I still object to the blanket assertion that it is the most sensitive data. I would agree if it were caveated: "For many, there is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA."

[dane-pgp]

> "For many, there is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA."

I think that's a reasonable framing. Would you perhaps also accept the claim that "DNA is the most personal data that can be known about someone"?

It's true in the reductive sense that a person is made of cells and the information content of those cells is their DNA, but it's also true in the more nuanced sense that millions of people might share the same diagnosis as you (or even the same shameful secret), but no one who has ever lived, or will ever live, shares your DNA (unless you have an identical twin, or get cloned).

[peteradio]

My comment is less about the aggregation and more about the future. Right now diagnostic health test results are a larger concern for you, but that is likely going to change as technology advances sufficiently to take advantage of massive DNA surveillance. Let's say for instance that your DNA could be used to essentially derive your health results today and accurately predict outcomes into the future, surely that must be a concern for you since you are explicitly concerned about health test results. Maybe its not even the DNA on the swabs that gives it away, but instead something else in your mucous?

[mcculley]

I welcome knowledge that would more accurately predict adverse outcomes.