DNA kit to test best diet and exercise

Options
12346»

Replies

  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,984 Member
    Options
    DoubleUbea wrote: »
    Lynn, take some Soma, you will feel better.

    I feel fine. When I read a long thread, I respond to posts as I go along, because it's too much of a pain to read the whole thing first and then have to go back and find all the posts I wanted to respond to.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,984 Member
    Options
    pinuplove wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    MikePfirrman wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    After working in the industry, I think DNA testing across wide swaths of people will end up being a very good thing in time, but even the Ancestry ones won't be of much help to most people because what they *think* they will find out is really not what the results will disclose. Ancestry is either extremely micro (as in, immediate family) or extremely macro (as in, 100,000 years ago your ancestors lived here - pointing to an entire continent.) Not really what people think they will get at all.

    In time these shared databases with computer number-crunching will be really helpful for disease prevention and for diagnostic purposes.

    We're not there yet. Not enough population data has been collected.

    I did a test, just a general ID test because why not? I don't think my insurance company is going to use it against me. My tin foil hat is on someone else's head. If I get a disease, they still have to pay. It is only a problem if/when there are health insurance exclusion clauses (pre-existing conditions exclusions) - which I don't think are legal right now. If I have a marker I may or may not get that illness before I fall off a cliff hiking.

    You touch on my thoughts. I have little issue with a DNA testing company selling my info anonymously for research (if they ask my permission first). I have HUGE issues with all the crap insurance companies pass around to deny medical coverage or rate your policies.

    Well, and it's not like you have to show ID to have a test done. If you are the Conspiracy Theory type, just use a fake name.

    We did tests on Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Andrea Doria, John and Jane Doe, Dracula. They only have what you give them.



    And no, Mickey Mouse and Mighty Mouse are not biologically related. :wink:

    You have a remote method of payment that is untraceable to you? And an address (physical or virtual) for them to return the results that cannot be traced to you?

    Prepaid Visa card and throwaway email address. Nothing is sent via snail mail.

    Isn't there a record of your purchase of the Visa card?

    Cash, big sunglasses, and a baseball cap :sunglasses:

    :smile:

    I like it, but I think that puts you more in the paranoid camp than the people you're arguing against. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,267 Member
    Options
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?

    It's like this but with DNAagnsvhk1ndj0.png

    OMG... LOVE this!

    ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.

    Here's the thing, though.

    They can't prove who took these tests.

    When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.

    We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.

    An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.

    All this fear is just unfounded.

    I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.

    People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.

    I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.

    Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.

    As someone from an IT background (including a big chunk of DRM-type work), I find it touching how good people think the "big data" people are at matching up data from disparate databases to profile you, just as if we were on one of those CSI TV shows where they push a button and the suspect's 20-year-old employment records get matched up with residence history, crime patterns in each city, and a list of how their Starbucks preferences have changed over the years. (LOLZ!)

    If you haven't, seek out and look at one of the advertising infrastructure sites where you can look at your own profile data. IME, it's pretty hilarious. If I were paranoid about this kind of stuff, I'd be worried more about the consequences of how weirdly wrong they are, not how scary-effective they are. I'm still seeing insurance ads from Mexico occasionally because I watched a few subtitled Spanish-language videos, and 3 years post weight loss, all I see is plus-size clothing ads. I ain't skeered. ;)

    Scary insightful? Nah. Someday, they'll get there. IMO, they aren't there yet.

    Individual identify theft is a whole different thing, with a whole different set of mechanisms. So is black hat hacking, so is doxing, etc. My biggest point of amusement is people who are all paranoid about this kind of *baby-feline*, then use the same trivial password on every site they sign up for, even ones we should care about.

    There's enough to be cautious about without inflating particular risks.

    I'm not really suggesting a CSI-type scenario like the one you allude to. Mainly, I try not to put any information out there where I can avoid it. The more places your information sits, the more likely it is to be acquired by someone you don't want to have it. IIRC, Target and Home Depot have both had their customer databases plundered to the tune of hundreds of thousands of peoples' identities and credit information.

    I mean, here I am on this social media website and I'm on Facebook so it's not like I sit cowering in my bathtub all day. This doesn't mean I'm about to spit in a cup for some corporation though.

    You say what they do with my information is not scary insightful...yet. When what they do with my information does become scary insightful, which you indicate you think will occur at some point in the future, do you think they're going to send me a notification on that day? I think not so I'll continue to play it safe by being miserly with what I put out there.


    I think it's possible (maybe 50/50?) that the technology and the privacy regs will converge on better solutions in time. Mostly, though, I don't care: I expect to be dead by then. Can't speak for you. ;)

    I'm probably slightly more paranoid about the convergence of governmental CCTV and face/person recognition, my self.

    BTW: The database plundering is one of the black hat scenarios. You started out talking about the grocery store selling your info, and FB being nefarious. Those latter depend significantly on the data analysis and data matching that just isn't as easy as most people think.

    I'm not trying to argue you out of paranoia; paranoia is fine. I'm just arguing (in general, not targeting you individually) that people should think a little more clearly about what the actual risks are, and why. Most of the worry I hear from people is equivalent, risk-analysis-wise, to worry about being eaten by a shark at the beach, but texting while driving as one heads home from the beach on the freeway.

    I agree with you that people generally are bad at assessing risk. They're also bad at assessing costs and benefits. I think you're on the wrong end of this one, in that the consumer population on average is saying, "I'm not likely to be a target of identify theft or home invasion or burglary while I'm on vacation, and, hey, cat videos are cute, and everybody surely wants to see my [location-tagged] picture of my dinner, and why wouldn't I want my HVAC usage connected to the Internet through an unsecured network with a default password on a device that can't be patched or have the password changed? Why wouldn't I want cameras inside my home so that I can look at the video online through a company that hasn't bothered with the most basic security to keep third parties from looking at the video as well?"

    I think I made an argument back there that the average person's password habits are a bigger risk to their data security than either big brother or evil corporations.
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?

    It's like this but with DNAagnsvhk1ndj0.png

    OMG... LOVE this!

    ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.

    Here's the thing, though.

    They can't prove who took these tests.

    When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.

    We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.

    An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.

    All this fear is just unfounded.

    I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.

    People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.

    I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.

    Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.

    Scary insightful? Nah. Someday, they'll get there. IMO, they aren't there yet.

    They will have all the data they're collecting now when they do get there, to the extent that they aren't there already. Notice they still have your year's old video viewing and clothes-buying habits.

    Like I said, I'll be dead by then (I'm 62 already).

    And somehow they've ignored my more recent 3 years' buying habits. They're really not super good at this stuff . . . but they don't need to be, to sell us stuff at a predictable level. (If they were actually good, they would've identified the moment when I was ripe to buy a whole new, smaller wardrobe. They blew it.) But close enough is close enough, for marketing. The marginal return is not worth the necessary investment.

    Professionally, I've spent time at conferences with people who do this big data matchy stuff; it's a little primitive. The average person would be better off worrying more about the personal behavior stuff you mention (bad passwords, social engineering, internet of cheap-cr*p things, etc. - and some you didn't, like page/like farmers, Macedonian teenagers' US-political websites, and more) and less about nefarious corporations, IMO. And that's not even looking toward non-security-related realms where people could hope for a really major return on effort investment.

    For sure, feel free to worry anout whatever you like, though, and I'll do likewise. :drinker:

Categories