Changing the law is extremely difficult in the US because of the gridlocked-by-design political system, so I think it's unlikely. Changing it would also be extremely unpopular.

Of course it could happen. But even if it did, all the other unlikely events I listed would all have to happen for me to be harmed. The point of my post was that me being harmed due to having given my DNA to 23&me is unlikely, not impossible. Just like it's theoretically possible a brick could fall on my head while walking outside, but I still don't wear a helmet every time I go outside.

Worrying so much about this stuff just feels to me like the tech geek version of preppers who stock their house with guns and canned food in case the apocalypse comes (which never does).

I appreciate you having the courage to go against the grain on this. I share similar views, specifically about healthcare privacy in general. It's obnoxious to what extent they go to guard some bland info like my blood type or blood pressure. I'm not saying it should be published on a ticker at the hospitals website, but the only info they should really keep private are the things that could blackmail or shame people. Birth control, abortion, STDs, etc. I actually hold the unpopular opinion that HIPAA goes too far. It's "privacy theater". If the concern is health insurers dropping patients, then the agency that regulates insurance should "leak" some information in a sting operation and sue the insurers for breaking the law. We shouldn't foist that liability on IT people and allow insurance to harm people.

Read this post again but take it as a response to someone claiming in 2020 that Roe V Wade could be overturned.

Roe v Wade wasn’t a law. Actions by the Supreme Court which are unfavorable are much more likely given that there are only 9 justices, they are appointed regardless of popularity, and they have lifetime appointments.

We are playing semantics here, but the impact is about the same.

Would you accept that the decision had a weight of a law?

The discussion is you comparing the overturn of a law to overturn of Roe v Wade. The weight is completely irrelevant because we’re discussing the difficulty of the action.

Anyone who knows basic federal government structure in the US knows court rulings are significantly easier to move quickly compared to passing real laws.

This isn’t “playing semantics”, it completely invalidates your point. Look at how well overturning obama care went to see how difficult law passing is.

<< This isn’t “playing semantics”, it completely invalidates your point. Look at how well overturning obama care went to see how difficult law passing is.

You do have a point. I disagree that it invalidates mine, but it does weaken it based on how it was originally present it. That said, we are absolutely playing semantics, because while Roe vs Wade was not the law, it was a precedent that effectively held back even a consideration of law changes at bay. So it is not irrelevant, but you are correct from a purely technical standpoint.

<< Anyone who knows basic federal government structure in the US knows court rulings are significantly easier to move quickly compared to passing real laws.

Zero disagreement.

I've repeated multiple times now that my post isn't intended to be a claim that no law ever changes in the US or that nothing bad ever happens.

I'm not sure how I can make my point more clear.

<< Changing the law is extremely difficult in the US because of the gridlocked-by-design political system, so I think it's unlikely. Changing it would also be extremely unpopular.

I am thankful for this response, because it illustrates something OP pointed out directly ( as humans we mostly suck at estimating future risks ). Changing a law is sufficiently possible ( hard, but possible ). On the other hand, short of current civilization crumbling before our eyes, there is no timeline, in which DNA data already in the hands of some other entity could be put back in the bottle. Possible vs impossible ( assuming time machines can't exist ).

<< The point of my post was that me being harmed due to having given my DNA to 23&me is unlikely, not impossible. Just like it's theoretically possible a brick could fall on my head while walking outside, but I still don't wear a helmet every time I go outside.

I think the reality is that we do not know for sure ( although some fun science fiction does exist suggesting it is not a great idea to let that space be unregulated ).

That said, DNA, at its core, is just information. Information by itself is neither good or bad. However, humans come in all sorts of shapes, sizes and capacities for evil. In some humans, that capacity is rather shallow. In others, it runs very deep indeed. Evil is not a pre-requisite to become a CEO, but since humans can be pretty evil, it is just a matter of time before at least one is hardcore -- kicking puppies for fun type - evil. If so, that one evil person can do damage, if they so choose with information at their disposal. And the funny part is, there is just so much information hoarded and sold these days so.. really.. it is just a matter of time.

<< Worrying so much about this stuff just feels to me like the tech geek version of preppers who stock their house with guns and canned food in case the apocalypse comes (which never does).

I will not give you a speech here, but never is a really long time. If there is one thing that a person should have picked up since 2018, it is that things can and do change.. sometimes quickly and drastically. It is not a bad idea to consider various eventualities. In fact, DHS suggests it is a good idea[1] to think about your preparedness.

You might be mocking preppers, but I did not suffer from lack of toilet paper during the pandemic.

[1]https://www.dhs.gov/archive/plan-and-prepare-disasters

Supposing that there might be imminent drastic changes to society that would make it perilous for powerful 'evil' actors to know about my DNA, I don't see why those actors wouldn't be so powerful they couldn't just mandate DNA testing for everyone participating in society. My DNA can always be forcibly collected from me later on, regardless of what I do today.

Also, I don't see the relevance of 'never' here? Several lifetimes from now, there will be little to exploit in linking my DNA to whatever artifacts of my identity remain, since by then I'll just be a long-dead stranger. But then when we restrict ourselves to possibilities within my or my immediate descendants' lifetimes, we run into the issue above.