[mdavidn]

You forgot an important one: Your ancestors, descendants, siblings, and cousins share much of the same DNA but did not consent to its release. All of the above risks apply to them as well. I'd be most concerned about insurance companies using genetic family history to deny coverage.

[sedatk]

I'm not too worried about it because it's never a 100% overlap. Even my brother and I share only ~50% DNA. It gets way sparser for more distant relatives.

About insurance companies, they're legally forbidden to use such data.

[harry8]

>legally forbidden to use such data.

Great training set to check the results of other factors, then use those to infer.

Moreover "legally forbidden" means jack faeces unless you can point to people who had convictions recorded and went to jail. Otherwise we're merely discussing business conditions & expenses.

[sedatk]

I mean, of course but that’s applicable to all regulations, isn’t it? Yes, they can be violated, but what else do we have?

[harry8]

If you keep things secret they can't be used in a regulation breach by people who don't know those things.

We have /that/.

Theft is illegal and you lock your house, and that regulation is a serious one. The idea we have nothing but regulation is absurd in the extreme.

[rocho]

> Even my brother and I share only ~50% DNA.

This is completely false. Any two random humans have more than 99% overlap by virtue of being the same species. It's even higher for brothers. We also share around 90% DNA with cats, dogs and elephants.

https://www.amacad.org/publication/unequal-nature-geneticist...

> I'm not too worried about it because it's never a 100% overlap.

This doesn't make sense. If they were equal, you'd be the same person except for environmental differences. Many applications don't need equal DNAs. E.g.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=KT18KJouHWg

> About insurance companies, they're legally forbidden to use such data.

This is a very weak argument. There's a long history of companies doing illegal things, and even if it's illegal today it doesn't mean it'll be illegal tomorrow.

[panda-giddiness]

I think it was clear that @sedatk was referring to the 1% that separates him from other human beings, not the 99% that separates him from trees.

[sedatk]

Yes, I thought it was clear. I certainly wasn't referring to the risk of incrimination of chimpanzees.