DEF CON 25 - John Sotos - Genetic Diseases to Guide Digital Hacks of the Human Genome

I always kinda curious about dna heritage testing. Until I saw John Sotos' talk at Def Con 25 [0]. He highly recommands you keep your genome private. And that you only give it away if it is vital (aka you're really sick). The talk is absolutely amazing, probably the most captivating talk I have ever watched (thanks HN commenter that shared it a while ago). But anyway, Sotos specifically tells his audience that, as a security measure, they shouldn't release their dna to heritage services. Because it isn't vital. Anywhi, great talk, highly recommand it although Sotos mentions DNA testing for heritage for a few seconds only, so slightly off topic :) [0] [this video]

This defcon talk on the some of the ways that gene editing can be used and abused might change your mind. [this video] Weaponized crops aside, it's also worth considering about all of the problems that have arisen with invasive species. What happens if a plant bred for it's resilience begins to choke out other crops? What about the problem of creating mono-cultures, either intentionally or inadvertently? And those are just the obvious examples of what could go wrong. Not to say that there isn't a lot of potential for good with these technologies, but I don't think that companies doing an end run around the USDA, or any other regulatory body that might catch potential problems, is all that harmless.

There is a much more convincing talk on the dangers of bioengineering: [this video] News article if you can't watch: [link] tl;dr “The reason you haven’t heard much about bioweapons is that they’ve been held back by a pretty severe limitation, which is the potential for blowback." Unlocking the ability to target specific genes will overcome this since the same tech that allows targeting only cancer cell will allow targeting specific groups or individuals. > What, for example, if groups spread their agenda in a very direct way, by literally rewriting DNA to make it impossible to live a life against their credo? Suppose militant vegans wanted to end meat eating: there’s a gene for that. Or imagine if radical misogynists wanted to force the veiling of all women: there’s a gene for sunlight intolerance, and the genetic functions of gender are already well-known. > Or, he suggested, attacks could be done on an individual level: targeting public figures by stealing their genetic code, or targeting their whole family by sequencing the genes of someone who’s closely related. And the attacks could be subtler than what’s expected: Sotos cited genes for intractable diarrhea, massive weight gain, total baldness and “an intense fishy body odour”.

Something even more terrifying to me is illuminated by a talk from John Sotos who served as Chief Medical Officer for Intel. [this video] "...defensive technology always lags offensive technology. So you know, the cancer moonshot I would propose is dual use, just like nuclear weapons and nuclear power, two sides of the same coin. The ideal cancer treatment someday is going to be the doctors biopsy your tumor, get a sample, send it down to the lab, the lab will figure out the genetic signature of your exact cancer tumor. Then somebody will build a virus, that using that if-then statement, only targets the cancer cells in you. They'll put that virus inside you, you'll feel like you have a cold for a few days, the virus will go to work destroying your cancer, and then you'll wake up cancer free. That's a pretty good deal, we all want that to happen. But notice this exquisite targeting overcomes that big drawback against bioweapons. So the new technologies are going to allow incredibly targeted bioweapons. So think about three different axis. Who might you target?...you could also target a family, like the royal family. You could target a group of people, or an entire species." He goes on to describe examples of what he asserts will be possible to do, which is target virtually any identifiable characteristic among a life form, or cause practically any sort of deficiency or alteration within cells. He also points out that Biotech is currently outpacing Moore's Law, and this technology

I don't have a source per se, just somewhat high level of confidence based on the following (weak, circumstantial) evidence: - There was a lot of bioweapons R&D done in the XX century[0]; it all seems to have been abandoned between the 70s and the 90s, but since the desire for it is not gone, it would be atypical for humanity if it really all ended; - Biological sciences keep progressing; each year, developing bioweapons is easier than it was the year before, and since our control over biological systems grow, so (I believe) the allure of a controlled bioweapon. - You have people like John Sotos - Intel's Chief Medical Officer and a colonel in the Air National Guard - delivering talks like [1], going all serious about the threat of future bioweapons. He seems to think that this is a real danger. - My general tried and true heuristic that if something is within realms of technological feasibility and promises a clear economic or political benefit, it will be attempted, no matter how horrible it is. -- [0] - [link] [1] - [this video]

Pandora's box is open, technology will spread regardless of what you do. You want to limit tech that will become cheaper and easier to build through the efforts of legitimate, well meaning research, and try to stop knowledge spreading as we wish for there to be more people in this line of work. More people having access will mean more people who are untrustworthy having access is entirely right but whether "which means more malicious action" is a corollary is up for debate, as we've seen with violent action around the world via many different types of weaponry. In this talk[1] at DEF CON, John Sotos pleads with hackers to put their time into learning how to combat biological weapons. He points out that the tech will move forward to being able to target more and more specific populations. Like any other weapon, knowing that your enemy has it too and can hurt you or those you care about with it is a highly effective deterrent. > As for building your own vaccine. Even large nations were not able to develop effective ones. It’s easier to put a bullet in someone than it is to take it out. Two things here. Firstly, trauma surgery and techniques from the military and places where bullet wounds are common have benefited the rest of us for when we get into scrapes of even a non-violent kind. Secondly, defence does not always lag behind attack, you assume that the future would look like now but that is to ignore the history of any tech of such nature. [1] [this video]