Hacker News Reader

Comment by mchannon | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps it was inadvertent diction, but your use of “imagine” appears to ridicule my opinion. Not cool.

I’ve done time with an individual who got (I believe) wrongfully convicted due to genetic genealogy. A lay jury watches Law and Order, hear “DNA”, and will proverbially buy the Brooklyn Bridge from prosecutors.

Get too unpopular with those in power, and maybe your DNA can be traced to a shell casing for an unsolved assassination a continent away from you.

Annie Dookhan wrongfully convicted thousands upon thousands upon her doctored drug tests. Someone just like her could do it to you or someone else with your DNA test.

There are laws against insurers citing preexisting conditions to deny coverage, and most DNA is equivocal as to whether you’ll develop expensive maladies. So that doesn’t worry me either.

View on HN

> There are laws against insurers citing preexisting conditions to deny coverage, and most DNA is equivocal as to whether you’ll develop expensive maladies.

In the US, those laws have been under persistent attack by Republicans since enactment, and there hasn't been a major election cycle where its repeal wasn't a campaign dog whistle[1].

And since when has for-profit industry required unequivocal evidence to strengthen their balance sheets and fatten their bottom lines?? These gamified business decisions are always beyond opaque and the burden of proof is always unfavorably shifted onto consumers in harm's way.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

I’m confused by that. I didn’t ridicule you, no need to make negative assumptions. I’m simply asking what you know about “nefarious purposes”, given that the government certainly doesn’t admit having such intentions.

Okay, yes convictions can be messy and wrong, and juries can believe stuff from TV that isn’t true. Neither of those demonstrates government intent. None of the lawyers nor the juries nor the producers of Law and Order necessarily work for the government. You complained about my use of “imagine” and then threw out a completely hypothetical and vague scenario (three, actually). Even abuses of power by government employed individuals seeking some kind of retribution don’t demonstrate nefarious government purpose on the whole.

There are laws against wrongful convictions and untrue testimony and abuse of power too. Annie Dookhan went to prison, and convictions based on her false evidence are being dropped and overturned. Why do you choose to feel safe with insurance laws made by the government and not trial laws?

Personal experience. Unlike most, I have been wrongfully convicted on fabricated evidence but never denied insurance coverage.

I strongly encourage you to get in the habit of proofreading your posts for tone. You write with pique, a habit I find familiar, as I used to do the same when I was younger.

It’s not just what you say but how you say it, and tone can either further your contribution or get in the way.

I’m sorry my use of “imagine” offended you. I did not intend for that to be a slight, but I apologize that it came off that way nonetheless. I intended it to be an advance acknowledgement of the fact that it may be difficult to prove the government as a whole has intent to use DNA in questionable or “nefarious” ways. I was simply asking your reasons for making such claims.

I know the government does crappy things sometimes, even things that contradict its own laws. I’m still curious, piqued if you will, about how DNA can be used by the government against me, what things I/we should be potentially concerned about.

Personal experience is fair. It’s also the reason I lean towards fear of DNA being used against me by private for-profit companies more that I worry about the government.

I lack faith in the longevity of laws regarding preexisting conditions, both the one in PPACA and the one in GINA. One vice presidential candidate is currently advocating against continuing the preexisting condition protections. There's too much money in the insurance industry to keep up a bulwark for these protections.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com