A cautionary note

[Father Bill]

I have always had grave concerns about these DNA tests from private, profit-making corporations. Security & intent must always be considerations.

For that matter, we may need to think further about the whole genetic search thing: We all have two families - those with whom we share DNA, and those who care about us. With which family would you rather spend your time? I know my choice, and fortunately for me, in my own case there is a pretty large overlap, but it's not 100% the same. If it works for you, good, but it may not be 100% for you either.

...and by the way, it you come back to me with "blood is thicker than water" and an argument that you should stick always to blood relatives first, then being a priest, I even have scriptural evidence to suggest further thought on the matter.

Meanwhile, here's a provocative thoughtful article for consideration:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ting-1.4632272

Just always consider carefully what's in your personal best interests.

[Friday]

deleted by author

[Baeau]

With 23andMe being in town, a local TV Station did a story about this subject. A year +/- back. Privacy, & future use of the information was discussed. No real solutions. They spoke of how the DNA testing companies use the information. Much the way Facebook, et cetera, use their User's information for profitable purposes. The 'experts' interviewed offered an interesting suggestion. If one was concerned with DNA information (only, & not finding family), & their privacy........submit your sample under a false name.

Personal experience, we know of an individual, that was livid (I can't come up with a truly appropriate adjective) at his results. Said individual, sadly, is a very bigoted. OK, extremely, which isn't a strong enough word. His DNA came back & showed a large percentage of an Eastern Mediterranean group, which he had personal issues with. For no reason other than, just because. Needless to say, it wasn't a nice situation. Have no idea where the individual is, & am rather glad of that.

[Father Bill]

Yup. If you can't handle all possible answers....

...don't ask the questions.

[Baeau]

Our line, "Be careful what you wish for"

At the suggestion of Father Bill, I'm adding this in:

Your opening, echoes my thoughts. The same things we have tried to instill in our brood. Being in the middle of Tech Ground Zero, we hear everyone talking about revenue coming from user/customer data, & their profiles. No joke, that was last evening, at a small family run eatery we frequent. 23andMe employees were at the table next to us. HQ is, only, 4 blocks away. Amazing the things one hears. Especially, when they are not quiet after several Margaritas, each. It appears that part of your world, the Confessional, is the only safe place for data? Any thoughts?

We have known many, not happy with their DNA results. The one I mentioned in my reply, is only 1 of several 'dissatified customers' we've encountered. I have difficulty with people's issues. I was brought up colour blind, ethnicity blind, political affiliation blind, et cetera. Or, we feel out of step with reality. My wife, in spite of her parents, shares my views, which we've tried to pass on to the brood. Judging by their varied friends, "We Done Good". Enough of my twaddle.

[LKM]

I have advised many people to research the family tree and the DNA companies before they decide if the testing is for them. There is always the chance with these tests the results will not show an inaccurate depiction of the family history as the same genetic trait could be from several places while most of these tests show where it is most common.

For me: I don't think it's worth the risk or the $100 or more just to find verify my Y-DNA haplogroup when other family have taken the test.

[Father Bill]

A further thought: The news you discover might also be a problem, or even in extreme cases, a tragedy for some of those you love, because part of your DNA is part of theirs too.

Just... use caution and think first.

[Tobus]

I'm often accused of being a technophobe, luddite, or a paranoid hermit because I have always refused to join Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, and all the other popular social media platforms. My stance has always been that it's not a matter of if, but when your personal information will be exploited. Looks like I was right on that count. And my stance on DNA testing has been the same. I can imagine that I'll be proven correct on that matter as well.

Honestly, in this day and age of zero corporate accountability, mass marketing, and contant hacking and selling of private information on the dark web, how could anyone truly believe that their information is safe? It's way too late for most of us to try to retract our names, addresses, phone numbers, banking information, credit card numbers, social security numbers, and other critical personal information from internet databases in which they may reside. We just have to patiently wait for the inevitable day that those companies get hacked and our identities get stolen. But to my knowledge, no one has a sample of my DNA, and I intend to keep it that way. It doesn't matter how curious I am about the genetic results, I just don't see myself crossing that particular rubicon. Once my DNA is "out there", it's too late for whatever could possibly be done with it in the rest of my lifetime. I just don't see it being worth the risk.

[The TALL TN Scot]

I admit that I was curious to try a DNA testing kit, but never got one. My wife thought it would be neat and got me one to commemorate reaching 20 years with the military. While it may be dangerous to have this mindset, I figured, "Why not?" because Uncle Same has had my DNA on file since 1998 and as I have learned, NOTHING is safeguarded against discovery to a party that wants the information badly enough.

Mine came back with some interesting, albeit somewhat generic, information. I haven't really looked into it yet and there may be more pertinent information in the results, but for now I am not overwhelmed.

[CameronCat]

I have always had grave concerns about these DNA tests from private, profit-making corporations. Security & intent must always be considerations.

A similar article by Peter J. Pitts ( a former Food and Drug Administration associate commissioner) ran in some U.S. papers today. The link to my local paper is behind a paywall but a bit of Googling should find it available in public ... the title here was "Worried on privacy? Don’t forget ancestry sites share info, too."

A sample quote:
"Testing firms seek users’ permission to share the data. But they gloss over the risks. As a result, consumers sign away their rights with little comprehension of the privacy violations and discrimination that could ensue.

Take Invitae. Its privacy policy says it may use patients’ “de-identified” data for “general research purposes,” which may include “research collaborations with third parties” or “commercial collaborations with private companies.” The problem is that the data aren’t permanently “de-identified.” The information can easily be tied back to specific people.

Just ask Harvard Medical School professor Latanya Sweeney. She recently identified the names of more than 40 percent of participants in a supposedly anonymous DNA study. Sweeney cross-referenced participants’ provided zip codes, birthdays, and genders with public records like voter rolls. She then was able to match people up to their DNA."