>On April 18, 2018, a DNA sample was surreptitiously collected from the door handle of DeAngelo's car;[64] another sample was later collected from a tissue found in DeAngelo's curbside garbage can.[185]
DNA as the guilt-by-association, they then will get the evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo#Arrest,_...
I'm currently in the process of figuring out where my most distant known paternal-line ancestor came from. Took a Y-DNA test, found a very distant all-male line cousin who was open to taking a Y DNA test (because he had already taken one at 23andMe, I knew the odds were good that he would be OK with it - the 23andMe test also had enough Y information that I knew it was likely we both descended from the same man).
His first results came in yesterday. In another couple of weeks, when his Y SNPs come in, we'll know which of my ~10 private mutations (ones no one else has been found to share) we have in common, which will in turn put better time estimates on our distance to other testers in our part of the Y-tree.
Note: I'm not saying you should not delete your DNA. Do what you want over course. I'm just saying for me, I signed up, fully expected my DNA to be used to conduct research. That fact that I could get interesting graphs and some health info was just a bonus for me
Is the best way to hasten the next bankruptcy to not delete your data?
The obvious solution is with legislation for transparency and better health care system.
s/insured/hired
Wait until we have DNA detectors wired up to collect the DNA we exhale and rapid sequencers that handle what might be below the limit of detection today.
Maybe that's fifty years down the road, but it's coming.
Gattaca was a prescient premonition, it was just a hundred years ahead of its time.
1. Why take the chance?
2. Your DNA being out in the wild also impacts the privacy of your relatives (including those you might not know, and those who don't exist yet (a child, a nephew, a niece for instance)), so if not for you, do it for them.
It won't be a guarantee, but it maximizes the chances.
I do think that the health stuff from 23andMe is only marginally better than astrology, that the ethnicity estimates are inferior to what most people can get from good old fashioned genealogy, but that the matching may be useful, if you value knowing who you're related to a lot.
While some DNA characteristics can be statistically linked with some costly health conditions, the connection to "being a good hire" seems totally imaginary to me, has always been and will always be.
For what it's worth, public posts and comments on internet are probably a much better indicator of whether someone is going to be an obedient employee, and this dystopia is technically doable right now, and certainly many are working on it already.
Good luck blue cross.
If these companies have the legal clearance to use DNA data, why would they be satisfied only having secondhand access to that data for a relatively small subset of the population? They'll obviously want that data for everyone.
But what about the reverse? There's something intuitively unjust about the customer not knowing why they're being charged a higher rate, especially if it means the company believes there's a potential danger (enough that it affects the bottom-line) but conceals it.
So yeah, I think "transparency" is a robust principle to follow here, especially if anyone is arguing market competition is going to curb the worst abuses.
How are scientists able to work on encrypted genomes?
jmole•4h ago
It seems like you could do lots of useful things without having a name attached to any particular sample. There must be some kind of differential privacy approach here that would work well.