• bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    This seems like corporate whitewashing of all the insidious things they will actually sell user data for. Like “yeah we sell user data but only so we can make a cure for cancer” meanwhile they are selling it to organizations that are building biometric monitoring databases straight out of Minority Report.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      They’ll never make a cure for cancer. Illness and death are far more profitable.

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      23 and me isn’t a healthcare provider and not a “covered entity” under HIPAA . So the protections that would apply if you got genetic testing through your doctor from an actual medical genetic testing company don’t actually apply to 23 and me. Though the company maintains it follows federal regulations voluntarily “as a courtesy.”

      So don’t worry, your genetic data is protected by the good will of venture capital tech bros.

      • Daxtron2@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Any unregulated entity that swears they’re doing the right thing is straight up lying

        • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Yeah 23 and me wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to run tests for genetic diseases but not have to comply with any of the regulations that would entail, including critical things like HIPAA, offering proper informed consent before testing (which is not just a form but is an actual conversation with a medical professional), and offering up included follow-up genetic counseling services for individuals and their families. This is critical for genetic testing especially, which usually have results that are far more complicated than just a simple negative or positive. Basically just the airbnb or uber models of skirting regulations for profit but applied to genetic testing. FDA stopped them though, so instead of complying with regulations there for good reason they cut out the actual medical tests and now just compile things like, your risk of heart disease may be ~4% instead of ~3% because of this SNP marker we found. All so that the FDA and others can’t regulate them like true medical testing companies.

  • mayoi@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Whatever you give to a company is not yours anymore…

    Anyway, realistically, a doctor could take one baby’s hair right after birth, the fact they don’t already is more surprising to me.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    kinda inevitable. with as fast as dna can be sequenced now… we are publicly broadcasting this information. how can we realistically protect something we broadcast. its kinda like having your photo taken in public. at some point, its gunna happen.

    do you have an expectation of privacy on data you publicly broadcast 24/7 everywhere all the time? i dont think so. i think its silly to try.

    its only a matter a time before most of the world is captured into a continually aggregated genetic database of unique individuals which will inevitably all link back together.

    are there going to be bad actors? yep. lets prosecute those mofos, but this kind of aggregations is far from evil or wrong or… stoppable.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Holy shit, GATTACA was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not an instruction manual!

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        i call this the ‘tipper gore affect’. aka, ‘you see what you want to see’

        im kinda hopin we dont go down the full-on genetic editing path as they did in the movie… maybe just hardcore embryo defect filtering for know diseases/errors

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s not even the genetic editing that was the biggest issue, IMO. It was the pervasive surveillance and discrimination that was even worse.

        • mayoi@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I don’t understand why people are so against this. Literally anyone whose relative died from a “rare” disease wouldn’t care if instead they were born in a time where it was prevented via genetic editing removing the offending genes.

          Genes… Blood who cares? Total strangers from opposite sides of the globe can love eachother and two family members from same parents, of same blood, can kill eachother, it’s irrelevant.

          Humans did this sort of thing to everything around themselves and it has done nothing but benefitted us. You think apples have this much flesh to bite into because god made them that way? No, literally we made them this way.

          Selective breeding is very primitive form of genetic editing, it’s still done today even, for example in dogs, and everyone loves dogs for some reason, even those that can’t breathe properly because of how they’re bred to be.

          What is it that causes people to think it’s an abomination only when they’re the subject of it?

  • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Not suprised. Also not suprised they have been handing this data over to law enforcement for years now. Its no just to track down people whove taken said test but also people who are related even distantly. The fbi estimates they can use dna evidance to single dowm the possible people to 2 or 3 out of the entiriry of the us

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      The fbi estimates they can use dna evidance to single dowm the possible people to 2 or 3 out of the entiriry of the us

      i am not sure what you mean by this sentence, but you probably misunderstood something.

      dna doesn’t single down anything, as in it would help you track something. it tells you if two genetic profiles are a match (that means they come from same person), or that they are genetically similar and how distant they are - that tells you that the profiles come from x times removed relatives. after that, it is down to normal police work.

      here is veritasium video about how they used this technology to find and convict the infamous golden state killer - https://piped.video/watch?v=KT18KJouHWg

        • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          with big enough database you simple have every single person in it. that still doesn’t back up the quote i disputed in any way. can you find source of the quote? i’d be interested to see the original.

          • fishos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            They caught the Bay Area Strangler(or whatever his title was) by finding a dna relative match on one of these services and using that to narrow down suspects. DNA can absolutely be used to narrow things down without just having a direct 1:1 match saying it’s THAT person.

  • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Everyone who thinks this is legitimately bad. I ask, what do you think of AI art data sets? Sometimes, to make something new you have to have mass amount of data to start with.

    I think people who paid to have a service, checked a box for their sample to be used for research, and the research is to cure disease, have significantly lower reason to be upset than an artist who used Twitter to upload their work and had said work used as a data set to train a product that will try to make their career even MORE financially immposible.

    Boohoo. You signed up for a good cause. Get over it.

    • duplexsystem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Here’s the difference, an artist can make more art. You cannot change your DNA. If someone steals some of your art it’s not the end of the world. You can make more. If someone has your DNA, you can’t change it. Once its out there that’s it. More over having someone’s DNA can give you significant insight into into just the person whose DNA you have but also their parents and their children.

      • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Once its out there that’s it.

        But the subject put it out themslevss. More over, they paid for it be used. No one was tricked, captured or coerced in to giving their DNA.

        As opposed to an artist who is promoting themselves and their craft, used without their knowledge to replicate their work.

        • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          By biological father was an anonymous sperm donor before the technology to sequence a person’s DNA for under 10 billion dollars was a thing. They did not give their DNA to ancestry. Their sister did, having no clue that her brother had donated. Yet ancestry has matched her to several nieces and nephews, outing her brother’s history to his sister and the children who were never supposed to have access to that info. It’s not just your own information.

          Similarly, one of my half siblings suddenly found out that his dad wasn’t his birth dad.

          Anyways, he happens to be cool with the fact that he suddenly had contact with offspring who weren’t supposed to know who he was.

          But our DNA is interconnected. It doesn’t just belong to one person.

          • poppy@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Happier version of your story:

            My dad an I both did 23 and Me. He made sure I knew he had done sperm donation before I met my mother just in case something came up. Well, it did! I have two half siblings from his donations! I think it’s cool, and I think he’s happy to know he helped two families have a child.

            • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I have a lot of half-siblings. One set of two, one set of 3 (I’ve only met the oldest), one only child, there’s me and my two full siblings, and the donor’s actual child. There’s more out there. Another we matched with their child, but I don’t think we even know their name. Been pretty cool meeting all of them and the donor. Its actually been a happy experience, but one certain people had no choice in making.

          • probablyaCat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s interconnected, sure, but I think you’d have an uphill battle that it doesn’t belong to that person.

    • Melpomene@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      If someone opts into the research, I have no problem with thier DNA being used for that purpose. What I do have a problem with is the medical community’s belief that providing a biological sample for one purpose (for example, a biopsy) entitles them to use that sample in any way they see fit.

      Henrietta Lacks comes to mind, here.

      If I pay someone to I dunno, clean my house and I give them a key to enter, that doesn’t give them permission to rent out my kitchen or borrow my clothes. Similarly, if I pay a company to sequence my DNA because its the only way I’ll ever know where I come from (team adopted,) that should not give them permission to profit off my limited use sample unless they explicitly ask.

      If they want to use the collected DNA for additional research, it isn’t unreasonable to expect them to ask first.

    • Yewb@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Get outta here with your logical conclusions!

      I like your take thank you!

  • Fullest@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    This isn’t even new. Why are we posting things from over two years ago and treating it like some sort of revelation?

    • lmaydev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I donated my DNA to a research project. I have Crohn’s disease and type 1 diabetes. I’m likely autoimmune prone.

      I get updates about what it’s used for. Usually trying to identify causes for autoimmune diseases. It feels good to help out the people fighting disease.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        But that’s sort of the point. You donated it knowing it was going to research. People using 23andme did not. And they will not be getting updates on the research either.

        • qqq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          They were very clear it was for research in my memory. That was the reason I did it.

        • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          No, the project there referring to is run by 23andme. My whole family participates in the same research because so many of us have Crohn’s disease.

  • probablyaCat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yeah this doesn’t bother me. And I tend to be a somewhat paranoid person. But I got convinced to do one of these by my partner. And so far, no regrets. They had some family surprises, but they doesn’t regret it either. If they make some cool new meds with my DNA (honestly even if I have only the knowledge that they made meds from 23andme) I’m just going to go around saying hey that might have my DNA in it.

    Just wait until you guys find out what they’re really doing is cloning us all to replace us with mindless worker drones. I accidentally met mine. They were nice. Bought me a coffee. Then I got real sleepy and woke up half buried in the woods. Real strange day.

      • probablyaCat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah I saw when that happened. I don’t do the open sharing. But it is easy to identify me as a Jew plenty of other ways. Including online with things attached to my real name. So it is what it is.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          If problems arise, you can always ditch your name but not your DNA. Obviously, those are worst case scenarios but I’m personally worried about DNA being used by insurance companies, being coupled to credit scores, used for higher education admittance, etc

  • guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I appreciated the dive into how investors think about these things, basically how this was the plan from the beginning, and how their entire product line up till this point was just a ploy to build up a database for their real moneymaker: genetics research and biotech.

    Blows me away how incredulous people are. So many people paid money to give away possibly the single most valuable piece of information about them.

  • s7ryph@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Ok, they are using your data to drive pharma development. Does it really matter which pharma company gets rich. If it leads to improvement i. medicine it is a net gain for humanity.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      But what about the $0.20 or so that I’m owed for having my genes used for such a thing! No cancer cures until I get the pittance I deserve!