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

This is a legitimate threat: ▶ this video If your DNA becomes available to adversaries, you may suddenly find yourself on the front line in a bio-war.

in “23andMe to share customer gene data with GlaxoSmithKline for $300M” · View on HN

You may find interesting this presentation from John Sotos on DEF CON ▶ this video "Genetic Diseases to Guide Digital Hacks of the Human Genome".

in “CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species” · View on HN

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”.

in “Hackable humans and digital dictators: Q&A with Yuval Noah Harari” · View on HN

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.

in “Why CRISPR-Edited Food May Be in Supermarkets Sooner Than You Think” · View on HN

This was posted a few days ago. It's a talk about the dangers of man made viruses by Intel's chief medical officer: ▶ this video 2 minutes in he talks about how a strain of flu escaped from a lab in 1977 and killed (and is still killing) millions of people.

in “US Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted” · View on HN

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

in “Ask HN: Is Anyone Else Tired of the Self Enforced Limits on AI Tech?” · View on HN

Good. Of course I'm not expecting anyone to prove a negative, but the lab leak theory was dismissed with very little evidence to the contrary. We know other viruses have leaked from labs before [0]. I think part of the resistance to accepting this possibility was that it was strongly associated with Trump supporters. I'm glad people won't be able to use the "that's a Trump supporter theory" bludgeon and we can start hearing experts talk about this in good faith. [0]: ▶ this video (thanks to whichever HNer posted this initially - not even sure if it had to do with a covid discussion)

in “The Covid lab-leak theory goes mainstream” · View on HN

Chief Medical Officer of Intel talking about what hacks look like on people's genetic information. ▶ this video

in “Blackstone to Acquire Ancestry.com for $4.7B” · View on HN

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

in “New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market” · View on HN

But if one wanted to, bioengineering ethnic cleansing (or whatever section of genome you're targeting) can be done with a couple thousand dollars worth of supplies in a garage, no nuclear or conventional arsenal required. The point of importance is the barrier to entry is so much lower. DEFCON talk: ▶ this video (DEF CON 25 - John Sotos - Genetic Diseases to Guide Digital Hacks of the Human Genome) HN thread: [link]

in “Super-precise new CRISPR tool could tackle a plethora of genetic diseases” · View on HN

▶ this video DEF CON 25 - John Sotos - Genetic Diseases to Guide Digital Hacks of the Human Genome The Chief Medical Officer of Intel says genetic testing in general seems like a terrible security risk one should avoid incurring at all cost. So that's a big fat no.

in “Ask HN: Is 23andMe DNA testing worth it?” · View on HN

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

in “Military robots are getting smaller and more capable” · View on HN

That's a terrifying read. See DefCon talk: DEF CON 25 - John Sotos - Genetic Diseases to Guide Digital Hacks of the Human Genome ( ▶ this video )

in “Putting 500k People's DNA Online” · View on HN

> Messy because it is difficult to limit the damage to targeted enemy combatants. Unfortunately, this may not be true for much longer. See ▶ this video for a scare.

in “Dr. Seuss’ arms race allegory” · View on HN