[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).

[mcculley]

No, I would not accept it. For me, personally, my choices and outcomes are more personal than the immutable attributes I was born with. My browser history is more sensitive to me than my DNA.

I am intrigued that someone might genuinely think otherwise. Would anyone rather have their browser history published over their DNA?

[dane-pgp]

You're probably right that most people think of their browser history as more secret or sensitive than their DNA, and maybe we're just disagreeing over semantics here, but "personal" can have a significantly different connotation.

One way to look at it is that someone's choices (and the pages they've visited) are things in their past, and even a medical diagnosis could be old news if they've since been cured. Their unique DNA signature, on the other hand, has been with them since before they were born, and will remain with them, largely unchanged, for the rest of their life, and even some time beyond. (Their DNA may also have a big effect on when they die, and the sort of life they live while they are alive too).

That's why DNA feels to me like it's an intrinsic part of someone's personhood, in a way that "They visited Hacker News yesterday" doesn't.