Hacker News Reader

Comment by kilo_bravo_3 | Hacker News Reader

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

The DNA records aren't the type that can be used to clone you, or frame you with some kind of non-existent DNA copying machine.

They are autosomal records. (or similar genealogical, or non-medical, types)

The people spinning fantastic fairytales about how the jackbooted thug of big brother is going to crush your throat probably don't even know what autosomal means and no amount of eduction will convince them.

I encourage everyone to submit their Autosomal DNA to public databases. You may bring closure to someone who has been or known a victim of a horrific crime and there is no risk to you.

You have at least one reply about insurance companies using this information to screw you.

1. This type of information is practically useless, actuarially, and

2. It has been illegal for them to do so for many years.

View on HN

> or frame you with some kind of non-existent DNA copying machine

I can imagine the hacker swaps your name + account metadata on the data warehouse website with the DNA content of a murderer. Then you get a visit from the police just like you were being SWATted.

The mismatch is only found if the police bother to verify by doing a fresh DNA comparison (which they might, but only if they can't convince you to admit guilt first).

A hacker can swap my name + address with a murderer right now without access to my DNA.

All of the hypotheticals in this thread (except for the CRISPR future superweapon) can happen right now without the need of a DNA leak: the US had an explicit system of racial discrimination encodes in the law until the mid 1960s without the need of 23AndMe. My insurer already has data about my genetic diseases and pre-conditions from blood tests I did as a baby.

I want to be worried about the leak, but I really cannot think of any consequence that's not a crazy sci-fi hypothetical or something that can be done more easily without access to the DNA database.

> there is no risk to you.

There is always risk. You probably don't see it yet just like only privacy-forward folks thought Facebook's encouragement to "share everything" publicly (circa 2007) foresaw the problems that would commit 10+ years later.

The small benefit of closure to a stranger who has already dealt with the grief of loss is not worth it for me. It depends on your personal value system.

> It has been illegal for them to do so for many years.

Laws can change. Just like I always assume a company can screw me after I agree to a ToS (eg. through a pivot, an M&A, or a bankruptcy), I assume any law can change with enough societal acclimation.

Also, laws are relative to where you are. If you try to visit another country, expect that they might have access to your leaked data. Hopefully you never want to work as a spy in the future.

Exactly because there is always risk, when it is small - people say there is no risk.

Lots of things can happen and could have happened but never did.

> Exactly because there is always risk, when it is small - people say there is no risk.

This is analogous to the definition of "literally". It was misused so much that a new second definition for the word is close to the opposite of the original definition.

It's still worth mentioning the nuance at least occasionally.

If you seriously worry that much about far-fetched hypothetical scenarios it simply means you're privileged enough not to have immediate problems that affect you today.

I agree.

But the unprivileged benefit from the privileged identifying longer term issues.

Sorry you're being downvoted for raising excellent points.

Watching The Genetic Detective[0] series has really shown what a great resource a searchable DNA database can be for people like CeCe in helping to solve violent crimes... even when they have been "cold cases" for so long.

[0] https://abc.com/shows/the-genetic-detective

Reply on news.ycombinator.com