Slashdot Mirror
When a DNA Testing Firm Goes Bankrupt, Who Gets the Data?
wiedzmin writes "DeCODE Genetics, a genetics research firm from Iceland, has filed for bankruptcy in the US, and Saga Investments, a US venture capital firm, has already put in a bid to buy deCODE’s operations, raising privacy concerns about the fate of customer DNA samples and records. The company hasn’t disclosed how many clients signed up for its service, but provides a number of customer testimonials on its site, including Dorrit Mousaieff, Iceland’s first lady."
I spliced in a trojan to my DNA. If I'm cloned in anything but my specific method, I'll instead turn out as a 70ft tall dinosaur human hybrid with fire breath, laser beam eyes, and the ability to fly. I dare them to clone me.
sell the customer data to some health insurance company.
“This clearly introduces a layer of uncertainty beyond what people expected when they signed up,” she told the Times. “People do need to double check what they are signing up to. These companies often use broad consent, and I worry whether people know what their data might be used for in the long term.”
Personally I feel like your genetic information is always YOUR data. Call it a biological copyright if you wish. There's only one you, and you inherited the code used to make you.
This is as close to a modern inalienable right as I've yet seen.
DNA information and it wants to be free--just like Hollywood movies, Britney Spears songs, and videogames! Let it be free!!
I can see the future now: The Pirate Bay of Cloning Data!!
As Alfred E. Newman once said: "What, me worry?"
Customer data should be considered the property of the customer; the decision as to what happens to that data should be accountable to the owner of that data which would be the person who provided that data in the first place. The data should not be transferred to a third party without permission from the owner of that information.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
We sent off some DNA in our family last winter, and I was surprised at the lack of legalese in the paperwork.
In particular, nowhere in any of it did it state that we were surrendering any property rights [i.e. the documents addressed neither the physical property of the biological material, nor the intellectual property of the DNA code].
On the other hand, because of the lack of legalese in the paperwork, it also didn't say that the DNA facilities were surrendering any property rights [or the ability to assert property rights in the future], either.
But I'd be shocked if the courts ruled for the creditors rather than for the "patients", unless there was some very explicit contracts in which the "patients" surrendered their property rights [although, even there, I wouldn't be surprised if a court ruled that such a contract were invalid, on e.g. 13th Amendment grounds].
" raising privacy concerns " is a ubiquitous trigger cliche tossed out by people who want to inflame and enrage. It is as hollow as 'raising awareness' because neither are things that are raised, they are things you become, or become more so.
In this case, the persons or agents raising 'concern' are Wired and Times, who just might want readers so they can get ad money, and a lawyer that specializes in genomics, who just might want to attract clients for a law suit from which he'll collect big time (despite the fact that the as yet imaginary court battle would be over IP and privacy, neither of which are related to genomics). Oh, and a spokescritter from a group dedicated to watching tech and waving their arms, calling out 'Danger, Will Robinson' any time they can pretend something technological might be involved in anything that they can yell about and hope those who notice will join up and pay dues -- oh yes, so they can collect some cash too.
TFA states specifically who has the data and what they can and cannot do with it. In purchasing the assets of DeCODE, Saga is bound by law to protect the data. Despite this clear statement, the writers see fit to have "privacy advocates", that is, people who appoint themselves to speak on others' behalf without asking them, be 'concerned' that Saga will do this anyway.
In other words, the only people for whom this is an issue have a vested (ie. financial) interest in there being an issue, many of which have no relationship or arrangement with the persons whose data in involved in this imaginary 'concern' beyond their imaginary right to speak for those individuals.
I call BS on the bunch of them. There's not a single DeCODE client among them*. The only person interviewed who is actually involved is the CEO of DeCODE, who knows what needs to be done and is doing it. Not even Iceland's first lady is concerned, and wouldn't even be involved in this imaginary issue if it weren't for the fact that the Wired writer knew her premise was weak without an actual imaginary victim, so she dug until she found someone who was a client and tossed her name out in close proximity to concocted claims about privacy and such in order to lend the color of legitimacy to an otherwise transparent FUD spew.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B