[losvedir]

> This disaster is the perfect counter-argument to those always saying "why do you care so much about privacy. It doesn't affect you when I share things. You can just choose not to do it"

While I agree it's a perfect counter-argument to that, is that what people always say? I'm not sure I've heard that argument as much as "why do you care so much about privacy?" full stop. As in, they don't really understand why anyone should care about privacy. And this isn't really a counter argument to that, any more than any other breach. And to be fair it's not really even a counter argument to that until you show the harm that came from it. What do you think will happen to people who had their ancestry data stolen here?

[cj]

I think the more common one I've heard is "Why do you care about privacy if you have nothing to hide?"

In the case of 23andme, it's a perfect answer: We don't know what's hiding in our DNA and I don't know how people will use that against me in the future.

[Buttons840]

Imagine a correlation study between genes and worker productivity, it'd be an interesting study if done correctly, but it might not be done correctly (and to be clear, I don't think it should be done at all). Now imagine you have genes that have a negative correlation with productivity which makes it hard for you to find work.

[kjkjadksj]

Its illegal to discriminate on terms like this though. Replace the word gene with demography and you can see why.

[Buttons840]

It's illegal now, but maybe not forever. Plus, illegal things still happen.

Or, maybe more likely than discriminating based on demography, what if certain "Obamacare" provisions are repealed and insurance companies are allowed to adjust prices based on genes, including the genes of relatives.

It's all a little far fetch, but only a little. My point is privacy is important and even those "with nothing to hide" might second guess their view when they imagine being discriminated against because of their genes. I think we probably agree on this point but got caught up in the details of a hypothetical.

[kjkjadksj]

They can already do that without dna though. They can just deny coverage on preexising conditions. This is what I am getting at. All the harms people cite with dna data are usually predicated on some dystopian government emerging, but also you can perform those same exact harms if you wanted without the dna data. In essense the dna data is not enabling anything not already possible for bad actors.

[mensetmanusman]

Well, thankfully with AI, we all know the answer. If a computer learns enough about you, it can steal all of your money from the bank.

[pbhjpbhj]

So, the reason for privacy is because the profit motive of capitalism is not sufficiently restrained as to protect citizens from being abused by corporations?

[pc86]

Be careful you don't break something with those gymnastics.

The immediate concern I had with this story is nefarious groups or individuals purchasing this data to target people with violence based on their ethnicities. Imagine if the genome of millions of Europeans was available on the black market in 1930s Europe.

[happytiger]

That is one SOLID example of what could go wrong.

It’s similar to the Office of Personnel Management data breach when every Federal Employee was just 0wn3d. It included 21.5 million background investigations into people and the personnel files of every federal employee and most contractors.

Just slightly sensitive stuff. Nobody knows how many people died as a result of the hack, but I’m sure it was non-trivial because a LOT of people got surprised doxed.

This information is still rattling around out there and will have implications for generations.

Imagine if the same could be done for demographics based on genetics — the risk factors for medical conditions, the ethnic ties you’re talking about, etc.

It’s weighty stuff.

[bigtunacan]

Considering one of the hacker's first actions was to offer for sale data identifying people of Jewish or Chinese descent I think that's a very valid concern.

[jstarfish]

Did anybody actually buy it though? This could be misdirection, or just misguided marketing based on historical instances of abuse. China isn't known for trying to repatriate descendants, and it's not exactly difficult to find Jews.

Ancestry data would certainly be of interest to a particular demographic known to discriminate by caste. There's no escaping your low-class heritage when anyone can look up your stolen DNA profile on the black market.

[fragmede]

"not exactly difficult"...

I'm not Jewish, but I feel like there's some sort of reason for them not wanting a list of who they and where they live to exist.

[suslik]

> it's not exactly difficult to find Jews.

Really? As a 25% jew whos genetic data was probably just stolen, I'd like to disagree with that statement. I don't harbour any stereotypical jewish phenotypes, and don't self-identify as a jew, but who knows if someone else decides to do that for me.

[happytiger]

It doesn’t matter if it got bought because it’s indelibly available forever now. It’s now available to someone who shouldn’t have it whenever they come around with the intent to misuse it.

And the choice to share or protect this information just got taken away from every one of their customers forever.

[tptacek]

I have no idea what "it's not exactly difficult to find Jews" means. It struck me as kind of an icky thing to say, so you might want to clarify the benign intent you had for saying it.

[firen777]

Weren't the sales surface on Oct 6th?

[everydayentropy]

I'll take this one step further.

What if you're able to pinpoint unique loci for an individual or group which can serve as a target of a highly specific bio-weapon? Do you think genomic bio-weapons aren't being explored as future weapons?

[kjkjadksj]

If a group wanted to do that why bother with the dna data? Easier to just perform the violence. Even in 1930s europe I’d bet the SS would not really be concerned with whatever your dna data said if they really wanted you or your people gone, you’d just be labeled an enemy and sent off same as a jew or a gypsy or a communist.

[titzer]

The proper reason to give for privacy is: I don't need to have a reason for privacy; you're the one that needs to justify violating it.

[partitioned]

Or a rival country could create a virus that targets 80% of their enemies population and only 20% of their own

[anonymouskimmer]

Until that virus mutates its receptor binding protein.

[pc86]

This is tin-foil hat nonsense.

[jstarfish]

Unless you speak Kikongo.

[_jas]

It is becoming far easier than you are aware then. Sam Harris and Rob Reid discussed in length a few years ago.

https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/spe...

[mrguyorama]

>Rob Reid is a podcaster, author, and tech investor, and was a long-time tech entrepreneur

Ah yeah, exactly who you should go to for bio-engineering advice

[jairuhme]

How do you make the leap to it being an issue of capitalism? There are plenty of bad actors who could use this information (or other hacked info) who are not a corporation seeking profit.

[lvass]

Like North Korea which by far has the most state sponsored cyber thugs per capita.

[cjaybo]

It’s the ideological form of “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”

[uoaei]

Capitalism isn't about corporations, it's about capital.

[pbhjpbhj]

Yeah, I didn't mean 'a philosophical ideal of Capitalism'. Apologies for my imprecise question. I meant Western Capitalism which of course is a form of corporatism.

[briandear]

Governements abuse people more than an economic system ever has. A corporation has never marched people to camps, nor have corporations ever imprisoned anyone for their politics. If I don’t want to deal with a corporation, I have the right not to — unless government forces me to.

[dragonwriter]

> Governements abuse people more than an economic system ever has

This is true on one level, as economic systems are not actors, but abstractions for aggregates of actions; its false on a more concrete level because governments are also not real concrete actors but abstractions for aggregates of real actors.

Both governments and economic systems (and corporations, which you seem to drop in as ig they were the same as economic systems) are abstractions through which real actors act, including to oppress, and very often actions by thr same actors involves all thrre abstractions (even a single action might). Corporations, after all. are themselves creatures of gogernment through law, and economic systems exist only as ideals without being made manifest through legal systems.

> A corporation has never marched people to camps,

You probably don't want to think about most of the best known early joint-stock conpanies (any of the variously East India companies, but especially the British, the Royal African Company, etc.)

> If I don’t want to deal with a corporation, I have the right not to — unless government forces me to.

Corporations—like any individuals—can and do apply coercive force on their own with only after-the-fact review by governments (and, in many cases historically, with obvjecting governments having limited power to apply sanctions), so, no, this isn't correct.

[Pat_Murph]

"Corporations have never imprisoned anyone for their politics"

Really?

Let me introduce you to Steven Donziger.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/26/lawyer-stev...

Ho and what about all those corporations that used Jewish slaves during world war 2?

Or just today, Coca Cola killing people protesting them taking their land away or Amazon imposing atrocious work conditions to their employees?

Before blindly defending corporations I'd try and take a look at reality...

It's not as simple as "government bad and corporations good"

[quantified]

Corporations have pushed wars and has people shot and beaten for their politics.

And to you I guess a cotton or sugar plantation was not a capitalist enterprise?

[wongarsu]

My go-to is "what if literal nazis come to power and use this information to kick-start their eugenics program", but I guess rampant capitalism is also on the threat list.

[wahnfrieden]

There are already businesses that practice eugenics based on illegal data like this or illegal maps

[briandear]

How is a map illegal?

[wahnfrieden]

In Japan there are maps of old caste demographics that are used to exclude categories of people based on where they’re from or their families are from from working - companies have been caught using versions of these maps that are illegal for businesses to use in hiring. They are legal to print or exist without being in use by business.

[read_if_gay_]

Capitalism bad!

[zlg_codes]

Exploitation good!

[read_if_gay_]

Exploitation bad. Socialism good!

[CaptainZapp]

> What do you think will happen to people who had their ancestry data stolen here?

Sounds like an absolute treasure trove for a life insurance company. Or, would you disagree?

[jalk]

Yes, but one would hope that if an insurance company was caught using stolen data to calculate the premiums, that would be the end of that company and jail time for management (like the leaders of VW responsible of the emissions testing cheating).

[hnbad]

That assumes they do so in a really stupid and straightforward way. LLMs already exist to "AI-wash" copyrighted material in ways that technically don't violate copyright. I'm pretty sure someone will find a way to create a dodgy shell company around a foreign B2B service that reycles this data for them in a way that is technically legal to use.

"Feed personal data into this service and it'll spit out a risk assessment based on a model built on 6.9M historical health data sets."

[psychlops]

> jail time for management

Funny! We all know it would be a lone rogue engineer that did it in the end and management would apologize on their behalf.

[manishsharan]

>Sounds like an absolute treasure trove for a life insurance company. Or, would you disagree?

Disagree. Life insurance companies already requir blood tests and urine tests before insuring a consumer. They already have this data

[anonymouskimmer]

The test labs wouldn't spend the additional funds to run a genome sequencing, or even a SNP array.

[nulcow]

> I'm not sure I've heard that argument as much as "why do you care so much about privacy?" full stop.

I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone I know mention privacy at all, as if they're totally ignorant to it. In reality, the majority of people will just let Google or Microsoft do whatever with their personal information as long as the product or service is slightly more convenient than the last one.

[mannykannot]

You are not likely to see the statement you are discussing unless you firstly somewhat frequently get into a situation where someone says something like "why do you care so much about privacy?" and then attempt to debate the issue.

It is not necessary to show actual harm from this breach for it to defeat the tacit premise behind the statement you are discussing, which is that their profligacy with their personal data cannot, by itself, reveal any of your personal data.

[White_Wolf]

I wonder if that could be used as a list of possible organ donors. I don't know what else (data) is stored there tbh but if it helps narrow down to find a kidney or heart for someone rich...

[hulitu]

> "why do you care so much about privacy?"

Do you talk family problems with all your neighbours ? With strangers ?

How would you feel when your employer will know everything you did last night ?

[quantified]

"People always saying" means two different things to you and the parent commenter. Some people do always (or generally) say that. Other people do not always say it.