So You Think Your Genetic Info Is Protected? Uhhhhh.....Not So Fast ......

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

It's long been a topic of debate. Do we own our own genetic information? Can insurance companies get their sticky little hands on it? What about employers? Lawyers and police ? Curious ex-spouses?

We've been promised by 23&me, Ancestry.com, GEDmatch and others that it's safely locked behind an impenetrable privacy curtain.

Here's some food for thought, though, before you rush your Q-swab to that lab:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/business/dna-database-search-warrant.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article


EDIT, MO/ 11-25:
Here's another article, this one from the L.A. TIMES, about just how tenuous our DNA privacy protections are:

DNA genealogical databases are a gold mine for police, but with few rules and little transparency
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-24/law-enforcement-dna-crime-cases-privacy

 

[SSekouB]

Interesting, but not surprising.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Interesting, but not surprising.

Except to the several millions of people who gave up their genetic material under the promises of the testing companies, and in the belief that their privacy was protected into forever ...

 

[SSekouB]

Except to the several millions of people who gave up their genetic material under the promises of the testing companies, and in the belief that their privacy was protected into forever ...

Yeah, it’s terribly surprising that a company would fail to do what it promised.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Yeah, it’s terribly surprising that a company would fail to do what it promised.

I know. Stunning surprize.

But in this case, everyone thought they were protected, not so much by the company, but by the law.

And when has our legal system ever let us down ??!!???? Oh, wait ......

But the stunningly unpleasant surprize here is that you don't even have to have sent in your information. You can be tracked by that 5th cousin's 2nd husband's third uncle's info ....

So in a way, this is a betrayal of even those of us who were too jaded, too suspicious of official promises, whether from companies or from the legal system, to send in our genetic samples ....

Just a total Hat Trick.

Fun.

 

[SSekouB]

Just a total Hat Trick.

You are absolutely right. One can never really see all the myriad ways in which something can come back to haunt.
But, if you think about it..., it’s always the 2nd husband’s third uncle that screws it up for everyone — every. time.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

You are absolutely right. One can never really see all the myriad ways in which something can come back to haunt.
But, if you think about it..., it’s always the 2nd husband’s third uncle that screws it up for everyone — every. time.

Yeah, the law of unforeseen consequences is a total and continuous @ss-biter, even worse than the law of unintended consequences, which is bad enough and has written practically every history book in .... uh, history.

 

[BeADocToGoTo1]

I thought quite a few people have already been arrested over the years via this method, including (c)old cases.

Keep in mind that Google owns a chunk of 23andMe and there was a personal relation between the founders of both
companies. Then remember the recent tip of the iceberg with Google’s Nightingale project. There is no such thing as privacy these days. George Orwell’s mind would be blown if he saw how reality has turned out.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

George Orwell’s mind would be blown if he saw how reality has turned out.

Agreed ...... and he'd probably write a sequel to 1984 that no one would be able to bring themselves to read ..... at least I wouldn't be able to ..... but I'm fairly timid about opening doors to hell ....

 

[Wolfcub]

The trendiness of 23andMe and Ancestry.com had me highly suspicious from the word go. Anything like that -just made to draw millions of people in -always gets up my nose as just a bit of a stink.
i.e. count me out right good and proper.
I never do like things that herd people into a sheep-enclosure. (unless it were an honest-to-goodness Border Collie)
And now the G-people have a connection -hey? Well what a surprise.

 

[tiredowl]

It's definitely a bit worrying, yes.
What about Veritas and Dante? Are those secure at least?
Those seem to be of clinical grade value.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

It's definitely a bit worrying, yes.
What about Veritas and Dante? Are those secure at least?
Those seem to be of clinical grade value.

I think in view of the content of the article, none of these places are safe. A judge's ruling in one case is going to be continually used as a wedge in others ..... at least that's the impression I got from it. The article I mean.

It is definitely worrying, There are other implications in this that extend tentacles waaaayyyy out ....

 

[Rufous McKinney]

I read this elsewhere, (the NY Times I do not pay for)....it suggested neither Ancestry nor 23 and Me were allow any of that.

but agreed: where there is a will, etc. etc.

A friend who happens to work with adoptees, insisted on paying for mine so I simply did it.

And in the Dept of Small Worlds, her adopted son is- my direct cousin....we share grandparent 9.

 

[southwestforests]

As for me, oh well, when you have both autism and PTSD you may have already won a couple encounters with law enforcement.
And as someone once said, remember that law enforcement constantly needs to justify its existence, justify its budget, and prove to the public that it is doing and accomplishing things.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

I read this elsewhere, (the NY Times I do not pay for)....it suggested neither Ancestry nor 23 and Me were allow any of that.

Actually, the article only said they'd pledged not to share the info. There's a world of diff between that and a flat out statement that: "We absolutely, definitely, positively, WILL NOT share a clients DNA results with anyone, at any time, for any reason, under any circumstances."

Here's the direct quote from the NY Times article:

"The two largest sites, Ancestry.com and 23andMe, have long pledged to keep their users’ genetic information private ...."​

Let's say you loaned an acquaintance $1000 dollars. Given your druthers, would you rather have a signed agreement to pay the money back in X way and time-frame, or receive a pledge from them that they, of course, would pay you back.

Here's another article, this time from the L.A. Times, on just how tenuous our DNA privacy protections actually are. I've added in to the OP for future readers of this thread:

DNA genealogical databases are a gold mine for police, but with few rules and little transparency
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-24/law-enforcement-dna-crime-cases-privacy

​

 

[Rufous McKinney]

the article only said they'd pledged not to share the info

Pledge sounds like- nothing. Yes I must have read LA Times which I pay for, my contribution to sustaining journalism. thought I was paying one dollar a week, apparently thats NOT the case any longer.

When I consider the vast ocean of relatives I've got, I bet there there are some humdingers in the woodpile.