286
California can share your baby's DNA sample without permission, but new bill could force state to publicly reveal who they're giving it to (www.cbsnews.com)
submitted 6 months ago by Xaphanos@lemmy.world to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 89 points 6 months ago

Wait, what the fuck? This is inexcusable. This means even if you weren’t born in CA, parts of your genome will still be in their database if you’re related to anyone who was, and those parts are often enough to identify you. This isn’t just about personal privacy, it’s about our collective ability to retain ownership and control over the most fundamental parts of ourselves and our families. And this data will obviously be abused by law enforcement, if it hasn’t already, because that’s what they do.

Babies deserve even more privacy protections than adults, since they can’t consent to anything.

[-] Aeri@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago

I still think I should be able to copyright my DNA and sue anyone who uses it without my informed consent, if Monsanto can do it.

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Right??

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago

This has been around since the '80s, 4 decades. It's not controversial. It saves babies lives, as they are diagnosed with genetic diseases.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/baby-dna-parental-consent-genetic-records-california-law-newborns/

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

I’ve been a CA resident for nearly a decade and had no idea about it. And now that I’m aware, I’m furious.

I don’t have a problem with them doing genetic testing for the reasons you mention, but they should absolutely not be allowed to retain the genetic material beyond a reasonable time limit, and under no circumstances should it be legal for them to share it with anyone for any reason. Seems quite controversial to me.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

California automatically stores your baby's genetic material, then sends you home from the hospital with a pamphlet that points you to a website where you can request that they destroy the sample.

It's not controversial because they let you get rid of it. Stop being outraged without even looking into the issue.

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

Oy. Data this sensitive and useful should not require an active deletion request, especially from brand-new parents. It should be automatically deleted after a certain amount of time since it involves the protection of entire families, even those not directly involved with the newborn.

I was more or less agreeing with you before, but why do you get to decide what I’m mad about? Sorry, but I’m going to continue voicing my opinion.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

I'm saying that you had "no idea" about something that's been around for a long time. Maybe you should look into the details (pro and con) before becoming enraged. People in CA have known about this and they're not that upset, just asking for more transparency.

You are falling victim to today's ragebait media, which is a larger issue. You may be correct but I'm telling you to not jump to conclusions without doing some research into it.

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 months ago

Maybe you should look into the details (pro and con) before becoming enraged.

And maybe you should try some basic reading comprehension, ey?

Data this sensitive and useful should not require an active deletion request

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's not controversial...

Stop being outraged...

Personally when I was 3 days old, after reading the pamphlet, I went on to the state website to decline the prolonged storage of my genetic code because I was well informed of the potential threats to my privacy it might pose. My less learned peers simply remembered the pamphlet and went to the website after a few years once they could read.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

YSK other states have similar laws. Off the top of my head NJ and TX.

https://ij.org/case/new-jersey-genetic-privacy/

[-] ParabolicMotion@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

I’m glad they collect dna from newborns. This protects people’s identities. My dna was collected at birth, as was the dna of my babies at birth. It really is in everyone’s best interests.

[-] workerONE@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

How does it protect people's identities? Edit: it helps the government identify people. People should have the choice to keep their personal generic information private. If it's in people's best interest then tell them how they benefit from it and let them decide.

[-] ParabolicMotion@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

I think it would help in cases like this one, where a man stole another man’s identity and posed as him for years. The person who had his identity stolen was sent to mental hospitals and labeled as crazy until he could prove who he really was. With dna taken at birth, there is a record of who you are from day one, and you won’t have to fight so many legal battles to prove otherwise. Identity theft is scary.

https://www.thegazette.com/crime-courts/former-university-of-iowa-hospital-employee-used-fake-identity-for-35-years/

[-] workerONE@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The DMV is going to do genetic testing when you apply for an ID? Or a bank will require it for a loan?

When you look at the way the world works you see this will just be another tool used to control and exploit people.

[-] ParabolicMotion@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

No, the DMV takes fingerprints. Your fingerprints are also collected at birth, too. When my children were born, the nurses even took their footprints, too. I got to keep a copy of each of their footprints. I think documentation is in everyone’s best interests.

[-] HelloHotel@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

One interesting thing, a fingerprint is (from what i can tell) re-obtained because the fingerprint data is internal use only. The doctors, The government, the military and the jailers dont share this data with eachother. With DNA, it sounds like the doctors are giving your DNA at birth to the government, the military, the jailers, the advertisers, and your insurance company. These parties dont just know your child's perminant identity AND their risk of medical problems or their biologicaly created mential shortcomings, now they know yours, your famialy's and a little bit about unconcenting strangers.

Its like if 23andMe almost exclusively used its data to hold power over you.

[-] ParabolicMotion@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I see your concern, but the government has been keeping files on individuals and families for decades. If you’re related to Charlie Manson, Sharon Tate, or both, they probably have known who you are since birth, and have known exactly where you live, work, or hang out in between work and home. My feeling is, they’ve already collected dna on everyone. If it is shared, at least it is one more way to verify your identity in an emergency situation. Oh, no what are they going to do with it other than that? Scoff at the fact that I’m the poorest person in America that happens to be related to the Pilgrims from the Mayflower? What are they going to do, read my file and laugh at me?

this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
286 points (100.0% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9729 readers
546 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
givesomefucks@lemmy.world