"Can you state exactly what your threat model is?"
The threat model is that police and prosecutors need to find someone guilty. If you watch the video to the end, the lawyer explains exactly how even a genuienly completely innocent person might be convicted of a crime because they were able to use "some" evidence to show that you maybe were near the crime scene. They don't need definitive proof - they just need enough to sway the jury. And if you take that into consideration, then giving law enforcement any info about you can only ever work to your disadvantage.
> The threat model is that police and prosecutors need to find someone guilty.
Sure. And the chance that I'm the person they decide to pin it on because my DNA happened to be in a database is extremely low. Why are you only focusing on one of the bullet points when the point is that probabilities are multiplicative?
Well by that standard is not worth protecting your privacy at all, after all the probability of any of your data being used against you is extremely low. And it's a difficult point to argue, because obviously it's true - but still, why take the risk?
>>Why are you only focusing on one of the bullet points when the point is that probabilities are multiplicative?
Because I'm saying that all of your points don't need to be true for something bad to happen to you. The probability of all your points happening is probably so close to zero it might as well be zero. But if you've given the state any information it can be used against you - like the point made in the video shows. So I think what I'm saying is that yes, your points are improbable, but not all of them have to happen for you to get screwed over.
> Well by that standard is not worth protecting your privacy at all, after all the probability of any of your data being used against you is extremely low. And it's a difficult point to argue, because obviously it's true
Correct, this is exactly the point I'm making.
To recap: the point is that it is not necessarily the case that someone who sends their DNA to 23&Me is ignorant of the risks or stupid; it's entirely possible that they objectively analyzed the risks and decided it's not serious enough to care.
> but still, why take the risk?
For the same reason I walk outside without wearing a helmet to prevent me from bricks that could randomly fall from building facades. Mitigating the risk is not worth it, to me, relative to the hassle of doing so.
