DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Article: Relative Futility: Limits to Genetic Privacy Protection Because of the Inability to Prevent Disclosure of Genetic Information by Relatives

Posted on January 13, 2011 by Dissent

Relative Futility: Limits to Genetic Privacy Protection Because of the Inability to Prevent Disclosure of Genetic Information by Relatives
Trevor Woodage
Minnesota Law Review, December 2010, Volume 95, No. 2

Abstract:

The Note considers possible limits to reasonable expectations of genetic privacy given that people share their DNA sequences with their relatives. Most scholars and members of the general public believe that an individual’s DNA sequence is an intensely personal matter and that access to this information should be tightly controlled. The Note considers both legal means by which it might be possible to protect genetic privacy, including recent statutory approaches such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and reasons why individuals might want to keep genetic information private. It also examines situations in which genetic privacy might have negative consequences, as when keeping genetic information confidential might prevent relatives from being tested or treated for diseases for which they are also at risk. The Note also examines limits to genetic privacy, including the fact that genetic information is a shared attribute with DNA sequences shared by relatives, and technologies that have increased the ability to identify the source of DNA samples obtained for research and forensic purposes.

The Note argues that, rather than focusing attention on attempts to protect genetic privacy itself, legislative efforts should instead be directed toward preventing the greater harm of genetic discrimination in employment and insurance settings. It suggests that one way to halt improper uses of personal genetic information would, by analogy to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, allow individuals to determine who had obtained access to their personal genetic information and the reasons this access had been sought. By bringing uses of genetic information into the open, individuals should be empowered to reduce the use of genetic information for discriminatory purposes, even if complete confidentiality cannot be maintained.

You can download the full article from the Minnesota Law Review.

Related posts:

  • The Havasupai Indians, Genetic Research and the Problem of Informed Consent
  • AU: New privacy guidelines for health practitioners on disclosing genetic information
  • Hearing today in 9th Circuit tackles DNA privacy (updated)
Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← ICO statement on investigation into 2006 FIFA World Cup ticket information disclosure
GA: Lawmakers may monitor use of medications →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Qantas customers involved in mammoth data breach
  • CMS Sending Letters to 103,000 Medicare beneficiaries whose info was involved in a Medicare.gov breach.
  • Esse Health provides update about April cyberattack and notifies 263,601 people
  • Terrible tales of opsec oversights: How cybercrooks get themselves caught
  • International Criminal Court hit with cyber attack during NATO summit
  • Pembroke Regional Hospital reported canceling appointments due to service delays from “an incident”
  • Iran-linked hackers threaten to release emails allegedly stolen from Trump associates
  • National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
  • Swiss Health Foundation Radix Hit by Cyberattack Affecting Federal Data
  • Russian hackers get 7 and 5 years in prison for large-scale cyber attacks with ransomware, over 60 million euros in bitcoins seized

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • The Trump administration is building a national citizenship data system
  • Supreme Court Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy
  • New Jersey Issues Draft Privacy Regulations: The New
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.