I bought a kit and then never used it because of all the detailed info they required in order to create a profile and the risk you reference. Wasted $$, but still feel like I dodged a bullet by not submitting. Could have created a fake profile and lied on questions, but that didn't seem like a good enough protection. It wouldn't be too hard for a nefarious party to link the results back to me.

Tim Ferriss once posted a guide on how to stay 100% anonymous (included tricking the parcel shop staff etc).

I haven't been able to find it. Can you post a link?

I leave my DNA all over the place.

Yes, but nobody knows it's yours.

It's super easy to find out whose is whose. To get hacked this way all you'd have to do is leave the house.

Similar to the different concerns between mass surveillance and targeted surveillance

It's easy to link a database and profile millions of people. It's much higher effort for them to come and get my DNA.

And they likely don't have to get your specific DNA. Just have to find a single willing relative.

> 23andME HAS handed your most personal data over to the authorities.

Now just wait for some strange shift in power. I hope I do not wake up in ten years, leave my house and am welcomed by the authorities (maybe the Evocops), because my subpar DNA didn't pass some unit test.

So if there are genetic roundups, why wouldn't they be accompanied by compulsory testing?

It's pretty much the same story with milder stuff like insurance. If companies can make money by offering discounts for people with genes they like, the insurance company not having your DNA isn't going to make your insurance any cheaper. Or employment, enough people will share their DNA that it becomes a necessary step towards getting the job.

The consequences all flow from allowing society to become hell, not from sharing the DNA.

>> So if there are genetic roundups, why wouldn't they be accompanied by compulsory testing?

Because one requires instating mass testing while another requires just gaining permission to an existing treasure trove, albiet a subset.

If the Evocops have a bug fix for my lower back pain, my principles would crumble fast.

What "authorities" have been handed this information? And what would they do with this information that makes it so bad?

Authorities === police, and other government agencies.

What could they do with this information that makes it so bad? Well, they could do something like familial searching, which seeks to identify the last name of potential suspects through a DNA analysis focusing on the Y chromosome. And a "promising" match from someone who donated their genetic info, could lead to your wrongful arrest... Don't think it could happen, try it already has

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_1b3a3f96...

Well that is unsettling. In the article you linked it sounds like Ancestry.com was responsible for working with the police. 23andMe seems to have a better track record on privacy and claims to have resisted requests from law enforcement so far. But I agree that it's not ideal that law enforcement can even make these requests. People should be able to check their genetic health and not have to worry about being wrongfully placed at a crime scene.

https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and-you/23andprivacy-your-d...

I use Google for email, I have an Amazon Echo, and I'm thinking about trying 23andMe. The best case scenario is that I get utility or enjoyment out of these things. The worst case scenario is... what? What would you say the likely outcome is? Do you think I will regret having an Echo one day?

> Do you think I will regret having an Echo one day?

Certainly some people have. A court case recently had Amazon turn over Echo recordings.

Similarly, your DNA could be used to place you in relation to a crime scene whether you committed that crime or not. I certainly don't want someone I bumped into earlier to have my DNA on them when their body is found if my DNA is trivially searchable. I'd much rather have them need to go through me and my lawyer before any of that is possible.

The likelihood of either of those scenarios is pretty tiny. The value of DNA sequencing and virtual assistants is real and substantial.

I don't like the better-safe-than-sorry argument when it comes to security. I think it leads to bad policy and bad decisions. I've been thinking about this after I read a story[1] about a family that has been told that they cannot let their young kids ride a city bus by themselves. It's a similar argument - the value of kids gaining independence is big and the risk of something atrocious happening is tiny.

[1]:https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/06/a-dad-in-bc-l...

It's not "better-safe-than-sorry", but a simple cost-benefit analysis of the risks and stakes presented.

Depends on your lifestyle and how valuable you think these things are, but I find these things almost entirely valueless. I think virtual assistants are basically total trash - I can type my query on my damn phone faster and more accurately than the Echo or Google can get it - and I just see no value in DNA sequencing unless you're looking for a specific medical condition, the fluffy interest in stuff like racial makeup just seems like a shitty trade-off to me.

A bad policy can be undone, publishing data can not. So I understand people want to play it safe more so on the later one.

Also keep in mind that with DNA you are not just making the decision for yourself. Your relatives share significant parts of your DNA, thus the potential risks will affect your brothers kids /etc as well. Consider asking their opinion / getting their consent.

> the potential risks

I'm willing to tolerate a pretty high level of risk. I either drive my car or ride my bicycle to work 5 days a week. I've gone scuba diving before. I rode a motorcycle for 30 years (I just sold it). I occasionally eat fast food. Crazy, right?

For 23andMe, do you know of some ways that people have actually been harmed by their test results? I wonder what percentage of their customers regret signing up?

It'll just be widespread NSA style surveillance.

That's a good point. I've been under this type of surveillance for quite a while now and as far as I know, there haven't been any negative consequences for me.

Most contrarians here quote nightmare/slippery slope scenarios as to why you don't want it, but in reality, you're more likely to be negatively affected by slipping in the shower.

I doubt most of the people intentionally avoiding Alexas and 23andMe also have shower pads that help prevent slipping. This is why I think most of this anxiety comes down to some combination of neo- & techno-phobia, like we saw with GMO crops.

for some people: health fear > privacy fear. Wait until you get a little older, and things start going wrong with your body, you'll start doing all sort of crazy stuff that you wouldn't think about in your twenties, like stop drinking beer.

cf. billions of Facebook users.