440
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

Drugmakers Are Set to Pay 23andMe Millions to Access Consumer DNA::GSK will pay the DNA testing company $20 million for non-exclusive access to genetic data.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

23andMe will provide GSK with one year of access to anonymized DNA data from the approximately 80% of gene-testing customers who have agreed to share their information for research

I see no problem with that. Idk what's newsworthy here tbh.

[-] stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

The problem is that just because you are ok with sharing your data (even if you don't understand the potential consequences), your close family and any decendants aren't able to consent or not consent to their shared genetic data being given to these corporations.

How would you feel about your children being unable to get insurance coverage because a close relative used the service and the insurance company decided they were at too high risk for expensive medical problems due to similarity of genes?

[-] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How would you feel about your children being unable to get insurance coverage

Just pissed off at the insurers, as usual. But seeing it as a data privacy issue misdirects from the actual problem, which is the genetic discrimination and lack of proper regulation (if that would to ever happen). We don't need to go to hypothetical scenarios of insurance companies scavenging for genetic data - they could simply start demanding genetic tests upon sign-up, which would void the whole "data leak through relatives" discussion and give them a reliable and legitimate dataset.

[-] deranger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You don’t need 23&Me to do sketchy stuff for this to happen. They’ll just get your DNA from another blood test. They could simply provide a sizable discount to those who enroll and make the premium for “non genetic” insurance rather high in comparison.

It’s one of the most stable physical data formats. It’s not hard to get someone’s DNA, nor is it hard to analyze these days. You also don’t need DNA to discriminate; they can just find parallel traits and use those.

I dunno, none of this worries me that much. DNA is not that special in my mind. I leave it everywhere I go. It’s not private data - most people just don’t know how to read it.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

How would you feel about your children being unable to get insurance coverage because a close relative used the service and the insurance company decided they were at too high risk for expensive medical problems due to similarity of genes?

To be clear, this is a made-up scenario that would be illegal under current US law.

[-] macgyveringIt@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

Companies break laws all the time. The punishment is frequently small compared to profits from the crime.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago

Vague nihilism doesn't dispute what I said

[-] stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

The law here is inconsequential. The only protection that is certain is for the data not to exist.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

The law here is inconsequential

It's very much not.

[-] optissima@possumpat.io 0 points 1 year ago
[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Yes. The issue you pointed to is being investigated after all. And there are potential damages if they are found to be violating the law.

[-] optissima@possumpat.io -1 points 1 year ago

Did it potentially being illegal actually stop it from happening?

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

It does stop other things from happening. So how do you square that circle? Or hopefully you can see that your simplistic thinking isn't terribly useful?

[-] optissima@possumpat.io -1 points 1 year ago

It does stop other things from happening

Source please!

[-] Stumblinbear@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago

"Prove a negative, please!"

Fuck outta here

[-] Welt@lazysoci.al 1 points 1 year ago

You're asking them to explain why the rule of law discourages behaviours deemed to be against the law. You should be able to find evidence for that yourself, it's an elementary tenet of any judicial system.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

You want me to provide a list of laws that insurance companies are not currently violating?

How about the one that you say they will violate? They've been not violating that for years since it was passed.

this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
440 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

59623 readers
1057 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS