It may be the gene that controls for credulity, as those with the gene for paranoia are unlikely to cede their genetic information to some shady company.
Send Blackhawk helicopters to collect samples by force? Was there bias in the selection technique? What about the people genetically predisposed to avoid the Blackhawk helicopters? We'd need multiple collection methods, and still need to retain an unbiased distribution. You can continue until you get to "we should set up global search patterns so that no human can escape our dystopian DNA collection". And even then you're still biased by population effects owing to the probability that there is a genetic population who have been predisposed to suppress their own genetic population at this point in time.
Gosh, it sounds like a fever dream.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/20/police....
It looks decent on the surface, but the more you dig in the more issues arise. Thinking about it for 30s:
- profiling is a direct use of DNA. Police had access to private dna banks and used the information extensively. Who else is using these same dna banks ?
- the same way people don't want AI farms to ingest their content, you might not want dna bases to ingest and process your dna for profit. You might actually eish a more ethical entity gets sole access to your information.
- you don't leave your dna everywhere. Getting a full dna sequence from hair or fingerprints is a myth at this point.
This prevents insurers from denying coverage or increasing premiums based on genetic information. It also prevents employers from making hiring or promotion decisions based on genetics.
These are the most straightforward ways in which companies could profit off your genetic information. Basically denying insurance coverage or employment if they think you’re likely to get ill from a genetic disease.
There’s also a much murkier aspect in which employers could try to guess your intelligence based on genetics. I’m absolutely certain employers would do try to do this despite it having virtually no utility.
But most privacy complaints here come from the idea that an evil corporation is going to get specifically your genes, look at them, and then somehow invent a super profitable medicine from that. Which doesn't really make sense.
1. Government surveillance, so that the government can take a sample from anywhere you've ever been and tie you directly to that location, like having cops constantly monitoring a GPS tracker on you. The government does this now through long range scanning, and there's plenty of puff pieces about how it's used to find serial killers and rapists, not much written about the dangers of parallel construction and unethical surveillance of political opposition. Genetic privacy prevents these abuses.
2. Privatised eugenics programs. Insurers denying or granting coverage and employers hiring or firing based on genetics is part of it, but genetic screening as an input to embryo selection is also being done all the time by modern eugenicists, and I'm not talking about disease prevention. Some of these people want "charities" which attempt to sterilise as many people as they can who they consider to be undesirable, and if they had access to genetic data it would make that a lot easier. Genetic privacy prevents these abuses.
I don't even know where you got the idea that genetic privacy advocates are worried that a company will look at their genes and make a really profitable drug out of that process somehow. Was this maybe a movie or videogame that you watched some time? Or misremembering/misinterpreting the real practice of pharmaceutical companies going into indigenous communities, using their knowledge of which plants and animals have medicinal properties, then patenting the medicines they only found based on that indigenous knowledge without any of the value from that transaction going to the people who actually discovered and relayed the information?