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Or, maybe more likely than discriminating based on demography, what if certain "Obamacare" provisions are repealed and insurance companies are allowed to adjust prices based on genes, including the genes of relatives.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