Posted on 10/13/2018 5:13:59 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Everyone’s DNA sequence is unique. But for those who wish to maintain their genetic privacy, it may not be unique enough.
A new study argues that more than half of Americans could be identified by name if all you had to start with was a sample of their DNA and a few basic facts, such as the region where they live and about how old they might be.
It wouldn’t be simple, and it wouldn’t be cheap. But the fact that it has become doable will force all of us to rethink the meaning of privacy in the DNA age, experts said.
There is little time to waste. The researchers behind the new study say that once 3 million Americans have uploaded their genomes to public genealogy websites, nearly everyone in the U.S. would be identifiable by their DNA alone and just a few additional clues.
More than 1 million Americans have already published their genetic information, and dozens more do so every day.
“People have been wondering how long it will be before you can use DNA to detect just about anybody,” said Ruth Dickover, director of the forensic science program at UC Davis who was not involved with the study. “The authors are saying it’s not going to take that long.”
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
“Sorry. I can’t see where a DNA database is any more threatening than the advent of photography.”
“Mr. X, we have your DNA at the crime scene.”, even though they don’t, but people believe DNA is proof-positive.
btw.....how do you feel about everyone getting a nice little chip implanted in your arm?.....that's make finding all the criminals, and us, a lot easier....
How does a database facilitate experimentation other than by conjecture on your part? That’s like saying a database of drivers licenses facilitates car theft.
Seems to me this is just another case of fearing something new without a realistic evaluation of what it can actually be used for.
Anyone remember “backward masking?” For all the hysteria that was raised did any of the hysterics ever investigate if the human brain was ever capable of receiving a reversed auditory message?
One thing I found disconcerting is that there's no verification that the DNA one has tested is actually their own. Assume someone was from a criminal family or had genetic factors they wanted to hide. All one does is send in the saliva sample and give their name and address.
It's beyond my limited comprehension to understand how we can be so concisely ID'd by a small vial of saliva. Or that scientists develop the knowledge to do so. Our world had one heck of a programmer!
That there is some mighty creative speculation; particularly when such results would require attendant legal rubrics that do not currently exist.
Cops lying to suspects is nothing any reasonably informed adult isn’t aware of. Furthermore, it is simple conceit to make blanket pronouncements about what “people believe.”
Gotcha.. I agree.
Your faith in Government limiting itself and not improperly using information and technology and databases in their lust for power... well, that's just adorably naive, honestly.
Things change. At the time Social Security was introduced ("currently" at that time) the SS# was not to be used for identification. Now ("currently" at this time) it is so used.
Nobody gets more creative than a greedy lawyer. I’m not a lawyer but I’m willing to bet that some of them are way ahead of me on this. And it doesn’t require much speculation at all just a DNA connection.
I met a second cousin this summer, and he asked me about a DNA match with the same last name as mine. Turns out it was my nephew. He would never have know without this tool. Also, people have found siblings whom they never met through these tools. On balance I think it's a good thing. One drawback is when women put a child for adoption, the child might use a relative's DNA to find her. More women may be reluctant to give up children for adoption.
Just one more thing.
“Now it’s being used to track down criminals. I’m good with that.”
Well yes some positives.
But there is also a 100% chance governmental entities will use it for evil as well.
That is true: things do change. But let’s look at your own example. What are the heinous impositions brought about by using Social Security numbers for identification?
Even so, there are numerous court/legislative decisions that would have to go the wrong way for even one of your hypotheticals to come about.
Yeah! They can use this to lock up the Islamophobes, the transphobes, the climate deniers and other people who do not deserve to live. /s
It is truly fascinating and may one day help to get humans off this racial thing. I choose to see the good in new tech first, then worry. I will be praying that my decision to do this for one child won’t come back to harm them.
Sure it does. Legal liability has alway, and always will, require more than just “a connection.”
No, dna is not a death sentence. Any tendencies it shows are only that. You can counteract most of them by lifestyle or other preventions. Epigenetics is one of the hugest things.
Anybody still concerned about privacy does not know what year it is. Privacy ceased to exists 20+ years ago, stuff like this is just the dying embers. It’s a big data world, you’re just an entry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.