[ExI] 23andME - Company issues: privacy
spike66 at att.net
Sun Oct 19 14:25:46 UTC 2014
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 12:42 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] 23andME - Company issues: privacy
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:51 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>>... Here is my question: are there companies in Europe like 23and me that
> will give out the medical info, or does the FDA rule there too? bill
>...Just found an article that tells you how to get genetic health reports,
bypassing the 23andMe restriction. You can upload your DNA report to many
small companies and get a health report back...
EXCELLENT article BillK, thanks!
I already use one of the free genome interpretation services, GEDmatch.
In that article were some comments that really caught my attention such as:
... the idea that people can gather DNA from one company and analyze
it elsewhere is a significant legal development. Previously, the same lab
that tested you would be the one to tell you what the results meant. But DNA
information is essentially digital. That means it can plug and play
anywhere. "It's going to be quite difficult to regulate," Evans predicts.
She believes that services like Promethease could invoke free-speech
arguments and other legal defenses if regulators ever approached them.
Reached by MIT Technology Review, the FDA said it has authority to
regulate software that interprets genomes, even if such services are given
away free. The agency does not comment on specific companies.
He won't get too specific about the numbers or say how much money
Promethease is earning. "We are somewhat shy about saying how much business
we are doing," he says. That could be out of a desire not to rouse
regulators. The FDA has wide discretion to act but often chooses to ignore
small-time operators that bend the rules...
My ExI friends, especially those in the USA, think about those three
comments. Better yet, read BillK's article, every word. We have a
known-corrupt government with a medical bureaucracy (which does not answer
directly to the voters (and which recently insisted that ebola cannot be
airborne)) claiming it has broad authority to regulate what an
internet-based service may tell you, even if that service is run by
volunteers and charges nothing.
If that isn't first amendment territory, I do not understand the first
More information about the extropy-chat