back
12 comments
Too bad "America" got sick of feckless bureaucrats and was goaded into believing that corporate authoritarians would somehow constitute reform. The bureaucrats would have been guilted into passing a law, or at least cast enough of a regulatory shadow, to constrain the worst abuses of such data. Whereas now this is pretty much guaranteed to be open season in the name of "freedom". To the "nothing to hide" crowd: "Slowly, then all at once".
Would it be possible to specifically target people with something like a bioweapon tailored to their DNA?
Theoretically yes, but tricky from what I gather.

Reasons

1) Most DNA is same with sparse deltas, so pathogen would need to match large amount of DNA and ignore lots. Challenges in biometrics and general mirror this.

2) Things tend to mutate, so even if this was possible with a single pathogen, it may mutate either targeting other genetics, or changing behavior.

3) Targeting someone specifically, and getting the "germs" into their system is tricky. I haven't thought about this as much but high mutation rate means that it would need to be introduce physically and socially close to target.

Maybe targeting specific racial groups or some other evil thing would be easier. There are many existing disease which affect different groups (not just racial) in differently with statistical significance.

That being said, I hadn't thought much about this before and it's certainly a "fun" scary thought.

Considering the sheer foolishness of in the first place having trusted their most intimate biological data to the parasitic opportunism of a modern Silicon Valley (okay, South San Francisco, but same basic idea) tech company, i'm almost tempted to say that worried DNA holders had it coming.
There is nothing "intimate" about your DNA, especially not the SNP form of it they store. You literally leave it everywhere you go.

You can tell it's worthless because the company is bankrupt!

>There is nothing "intimate" about your DNA, especially not the SNP form of it they store. You literally leave it everywhere you go.

Wow there. There's plenty intimate about your DNA and all the stuff in it that some shitty insurance company, for example, could use to justify screwing you. And the other obvious thing: sure you leave it all over the place, but generally, nobody follows you specifically around to vacuum it up for analysis and ID-tagged categorization. Having it handy in the databases of 23&Me, tied directly to you as a specific person and sold to third parties on the other hand....

> Wow there. There's plenty intimate about your DNA and all the stuff in it that some shitty insurance company, for example, could use to justify screwing you.

No there isn't. The reason 23AndMe is bankrupt is /that stuff isn't real/ and it doesn't work.

If you've ever actually gotten life insurance though, you'll remember they have you do a nurse visit with a blood draw first. That gives them far more information about you than your SNPs.

This specific scenario is illegal though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim...

> And the other obvious thing: sure you leave it all over the place, but generally, nobody follows you specifically around to vacuum it up for analysis and ID-tagged categorization.

There's no "analysis" or "categorization" you can do that's real, because correlation isn't causation. Again, that's literally why they're bankrupt.

23AndMe tried to work around this by having people do a lot of health research for free by taking thousands of surveys to provide actually useful data points, but even with that additional info it didn't produce anything.

Of course, if your relatives uploaded their data then a lot of info about your DNA is exposed regardless of whether you uploaded yours personally.
Wasn’t a cold case solved and a serial killer was caught based on family genetic data?
Yes, the Golden State killer. Noteworthy for some here claiming DNA data is "worthless"