Comments on: decompiling myself http://www.outflux.net/blog/archives/2005/09/22/decompiling-myself/ code is freedom -- patching my itch Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:51:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: JackPots http://www.outflux.net/blog/archives/2005/09/22/decompiling-myself/#comment-539 JackPots Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:17:44 +0000 http://outflux.net/blog/archives/2005/09/22/decompiling-myself/#comment-539 This is a noble, wise yet foolhardy venture. Here is my take: 1. Legally the proposal is great, but you do not have to make it all or nothing. I presume that you *are* doing this to safeguard your genecode from insurance companies or the likes. So, start with the possible areas for breach: most expensive healthcare procedures cross with your family history; cogenes related to mental health, etc. I don't think their is an evil conspiracy yet, just an economical desire to increase profits. But seriously, it would not serve your goal as the data will have to be characterized for copyright or patent. If the data is public, anyone can access it. It can only sorta safeguard (if you have the funds to sue) someone else with your genotype and phenotype to state that they are you (this legal person). We are many tens of decades from such a possibility. (*Please note: Copyright 2007, this author. Safeguards are made.) 2. Biologically: If you have the funds for this ad-venture, you probably would not mention it here. Paying for reagents, equipment, radioactive or florescenct labels, electricity, clean lab-space, reference data, local and federal approval, and, man-hours (a lot of it) may be heafty. You would probably achieve some of your goals by working in some cytogentics or molecular biology capacity for a company and spending a few hours after work for your experiements (and that's if they will allow it). You could just extract your genetic material (dna & rna) and deep freeze. Do a gross analysis, i.e. forensic dna fingerprinting, plus, and patent the intact dna with the gross data. Just don't get into any criminal trouble as the authorities have ready access to you profile. Another thing, the genotypic you is constantly changing: how would you count for that. I think the legal defination of a human entity is only grossly phenotypic with traceable provenance and base competence. This is a noble, wise yet foolhardy venture. Here is my take:
1. Legally the proposal is great, but you do not have to make it all or nothing. I presume that you *are* doing this to safeguard your genecode from insurance companies or the likes. So, start with the possible areas for breach: most expensive healthcare procedures cross with your family history; cogenes related to mental health, etc. I don’t think their is an evil conspiracy yet, just an economical desire to increase profits. But seriously, it would not serve your goal as the data will have to be characterized for copyright or patent. If the data is public, anyone can access it. It can only sorta safeguard (if you have the funds to sue) someone else with your genotype and phenotype to state that they are you (this legal person). We are many tens of decades from such a possibility. (*Please note: Copyright 2007, this author. Safeguards are made.)

2. Biologically: If you have the funds for this ad-venture, you probably would not mention it here. Paying for reagents, equipment, radioactive or florescenct labels, electricity, clean lab-space, reference data, local and federal approval, and, man-hours (a lot of it) may be heafty. You would probably achieve some of your goals by working in some cytogentics or molecular biology capacity for a company and spending a few hours after work for your experiements (and that’s if they will allow it).

You could just extract your genetic material (dna & rna) and deep freeze. Do a gross analysis, i.e. forensic dna fingerprinting, plus, and patent the intact dna with the gross data. Just don’t get into any criminal trouble as the authorities have ready access to you profile.

Another thing, the genotypic you is constantly changing: how would you count for that. I think the legal defination of a human entity is only grossly phenotypic with traceable provenance and base competence.

]]> By: Yashka http://www.outflux.net/blog/archives/2005/09/22/decompiling-myself/#comment-68 Yashka Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:17:46 +0000 http://outflux.net/blog/archives/2005/09/22/decompiling-myself/#comment-68 This is interesting, but remember that currently documented SNPs only represent "likely" places for humans' DNA sequences to be different. Even if you checked every known one in existence, well, you'd probably miss some important differences that are unique to you and not represented in the population at large. Also, 10GB? I dunno... The DOE HGP says the genome is 3.2 gb long. DNA bases are not 8-bit like text... They really only need 2 bits for each base since there are only 4 nitrogenous bases releavant to DNA. Even if you want to include methylation status, 3 bits ought to be more than enough. So 1.2 GB, tops. Also, our genomes are 25-50% highly repetitive sequences, which would make for an eminently compressible dataset. So tarball it, and you're down to the kind of sizes you could fit it on a CD and sell people for exorbitant license fees. Also be sure to lock down the proprietary file format you use. That was a fun excercise. -Random NIH employed Inkscaper -Other NIH guy This is interesting, but remember that currently documented SNPs only represent “likely” places for humans’ DNA sequences to be different. Even if you checked every known one in existence, well, you’d probably miss some important differences that are unique to you and not represented in the population at large.

Also, 10GB? I dunno… The DOE HGP says the genome is 3.2 gb long. DNA bases are not 8-bit like text… They really only need 2 bits for each base since there are only 4 nitrogenous bases releavant to DNA. Even if you want to include methylation status, 3 bits ought to be more than enough.

So 1.2 GB, tops. Also, our genomes are 25-50% highly repetitive sequences, which would make for an eminently compressible dataset. So tarball it, and you’re down to the kind of sizes you could fit it on a CD and sell people for exorbitant license fees. Also be sure to lock down the proprietary file format you use.

That was a fun excercise.

-Random NIH employed Inkscaper
-Other NIH guy

]]>