Maybe limit culpability to SEC Form 3 filers - easier to prove sufficient leverage and potential motive if not for criminal matters, then at least civil matters.
> In the article there is a quote, “There is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA.“
> This seems a bogus assertion to me. I can imagine many diagnostic health test results that would be more sensitive to leak than DNA (e.g., STD and drug tests).
> DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway.
> (Nevertheless, there should be more obvious warnings to customers about how their data will be monetized.)
> In the article there is a quote, “There is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA.“
> This seems a bogus assertion to me. I can imagine many diagnostic health test results that would be more sensitive to leak than DNA (e.g., STD and drug tests).
It's still PHI, and in this case subject to at least the Data Protection Act. The walk-in centers at Gatwick and Heathrow may have tested non-UK citizens. If so, they may run into compliance issues with GDPR or other privacy regs. Not sure how that plays out.
Guess I'll have to wait for the investigation results....
Being as (at least in the US) DNA is used as evidence to conclusively identify (or exclude) those accused of crime (i.e. rape kits, etc) I'd say that a court of law would consider it to be essentially personal info.
Disclaimer: Data presented is not manually verified and its accuracy is not guaranteed.