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.
> 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.
>> 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.