Genetic Access Control Code Uses 23andMe DNA Data For Internet Racism

rjmarvin writes: A GitHub project is using the 23andMe API for genetic decoding to act as a way to bar users from entering websites based on their genetic data — race and ancestry. "Stumbling around GitHub, I came across this bit of code: Genetic Access Control. Now, budding young racist coders can check out your 23andMe page before they allow you into their website! Seriously, this code uses the 23andMe API to pull genetic info, then runs access control on the user based on the results. Just why you decide not to let someone into your site is up to you, but it can be based on any aspect of the 23andMe API. This is literally the code to automate racism."

Comments

So What

[sexconker]

1: Stop caring what other people do.
2: Don't have a 23andMe profile (accessible to random websites on the internet, or at all) if you really care and think this will actually affect you.

Perhaps some users will implement it in a harmless and beneficial way, such as creating a safe space for women. But it’s just as likely that, in a few years, Googling for a snippet of this code yields search results that are the equivalent of a who’s who of racist and misogynist sites.

3: Take your sexist, racist agenda and go the fuck away.

Re:So What

[tgv]

> 3: Take your sexist, racist agenda and go the fuck away.

Well, indeed. What's the difference between "a safe space for women" and "a safe space for white supremacists"? And who in their right mind can think it's a good idea to have a DNA profile online? Even if set to private, it's begging to get hacked.

Re:So What

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, there's no difference and that's the point.
Who gives a shit if racist groups have a little pow wow on their own servers?
Are you going to tell them that they can't have freedom of speech?
Let them be assholes on their own private corner of the internet.

Re:So What

[Opportunist]

I was saying the same when Facebook started and people complained about it. "So what?", I said, "You don't like it, nobody's forcing you to make an account. Yeah, your friends are nagging you, but so what?"

Now look around you. Tell me, how often have you encountered a webpage that only lets you sign up if you have FB in the first place? Because they can't be assed to have their own registration process? Believe me, not having a FB account sure locks you out from quite a few things that could be interesting.

Let's all hope that this shit never takes off as big as FB did. As long as it's just some wacko nutjob pages that need to make sure your race is "pure" (or your mind puree, rather), there's little harm. If that catches on with something actually useful, things get less funny.

Re: So What

[Anonymous Coward]

The real issues are why is there so much black on black crime such as 4th of July in Chicago where 82 people were shot and 14 of them were fatal. None of the shootings were by police officers and Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

Re:A self limiting problem

[mwvdlee]

This thing was created by somebody identifying as "Offensive Application Programming Initiative".
It is obviously not meant as a serious authentication system, it just shows what is possible if we give out too much personal information.

Re:Somebody had to write it

[MtHuurne]

I think the author, using the "offensive-computing" nick, knew very well that this would trigger a discussion and that's probably the reason this project was created in the first place.

For this to work, there are two required components: code and data. The code has already been created and if it hadn't been, implementing OAUTH and using a REST API is within the scope of many developers' skills. So the route to avoiding abuse of this technology is by restricting access to the data. Simply put, don't give any web site access to your genetic data.

If race doesn't exist, how is this possible?

[Suiggy]

I thought the narrative was that race doesn't exist? That we're all the same race? How then is is possible that one can determine so called race by examining the genetic profile of a person?

Is it possible we were lied to and that race is indeed something that can be determined as a composition of genes and other genetic data?

Re:If race doesn't exist, how is this possible?

[Opportunist]

Is there something in our genes that makes our skin a certain color? Most certainly there is. There's also something in there that determines your facial properties, the color of your eyes and hair, your height and so on, all those little tidbits that make you you.

It's funny, though, that the color of the skin is given such a huge amount of importance. It strikes me as a bit arbitrary. I mean, why that? Why not, say, whether your fingers are skinny or chubby? Why is one genetic expression the all important one, considering there are so incredibly many of them?

Re:Verified spit

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Now you won't just have to buy other people's pee to pass your drug test, you'll have to buy other people's spit to get access to racist websites.

If you're paying for their spit you're doing it wrong. I was at a recent rally where the "white supremacists" were in attendance and it seems like sputum is their main contribution to society.

If they're the "supreme" the rest of us whites need to take a good long look at ourselves and ask why we work, can spell, and don't sit around in a pool of phlegm. Seriously - I saw a spitoon of them (that's the correct collective noun) standing around in a circle having a friendly chat before the rally, and spitting on the ground. Really - at first I thought it was a spoof, but no - they were fair dinkum about it (one even had his confederate tattoo on one skinny bicep). And they weren't even angry. If they were angry in a strong wind it'd be a mucal maelstrom.

TB. would be the death of them.

Some people pepper their speech with "ums" and "erms" - so do they, but they punctuate with a hawk and a spit. I agree they've been marginalised - just disagree that it's unjust.

I don't think you have to worry about needing to swab up their spit to get access to their "websites" (but use gloves if you do) - those pinheads couldn't run a bath let alone a secure website. Their "leaders" are a different type - I doubt they believe any of their propaganda. So maybe their websites'd be harder to hack. But if they used genetic confirmation for access control they'd have to exclude some of their membership.

As for whether it's good or bad - I suspect it's neither. How different is that from websites that confirm your economic status, some sort of membership in other groups, or identity? If the information is misused the problem lies with the person who stupidly put their genetic data up on 23andme. Once you give stuff away without license you lose the right to retrospectively determine how it's used.

Re: but hate speech can be forbidden

[Anonymous Coward]

Disagree. Any speech or expression should be allowed, or your remarks
themselves could be considered hate-speech. The Constitution's framers
understood this fine point that speech that is not acted upon is nothing more
than speech. Now if a person acts on their words, then yes, that's a problem

Re:Somebody had to write it

[parenthephobia]

What on Earth does the NY Post think "secret" means? Not only does the administration admit they're making this database, they've said it will be partially open to the public. That isn't a secret database. That's the opposite of a secret database.

Re: but hate speech can be forbidden

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your comment offensive and a micro-agression against me and my kind. This is hate speech. Please ban and delete immediately.

Re: Do they have a choice?

[rickb928]

"It's already been shown that Google gives different results to searches that include "black" names vs "white" ones"

And why wouldn't they, and why would you NOT expect to get different results?

Searching for 'Louis Farrakhan' SHOULD give different results than searching for 'Maria Sharipova'. Or 'Lothrop Stoddard'.

Such a vapid argument. Try harder, please.

Re: but hate speech can be forbidden

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is, and everything you wrote following that just proves me right. You are attacking the group of people who fully believe in the concept of free speech.

Now I want to be clear that I do not want you to shut up. But, by your own logic, you believe that your own speech should be censored. And any further insistence that your speech is "ok" will, again by your own logic (not mine, yours), reveal yourself to just be a gigantic hypocrite.