As DNA data becomes more digitized, there is a clear tradeoff between the scientific advantages and the permanent risks involved. Coming from a data systems background, I usually see data as something that can be changed, reset, or updated if needed. DNA is different. Once genetic information is leaked, it stays exposed. While digitized genetics can help medical research and give people more insight into their health, those benefits do not automatically outweigh the long-term security risks. Unlike a password or Social Security number, you cannot just replace your genome, so the consequences are much more serious than most people think.

Rizkallah’s point about corporate boundaries is important. If employers ever get access to genetic databases, either through legal means or a data breach, it could lead to real genetic discrimination. Companies might start making hiring decisions based on predicted health issues, productivity, or even possible behaviors. Even with laws like GINA in place, enforcement is difficult once the data has already been exposed. From a cybersecurity perspective, it is clear how data collected for one reason can quickly be used for something else, often without people realizing it.

The idea of ‘hacking humans’ changes how we look at the human factor in security. Most security training covers phishing, weak passwords, or social engineering, but biological data is different because it is permanent and directly linked to a person’s identity. If attackers can use something you cannot change, protecting genetic data becomes more than just a cybersecurity problem. It turns into a lifelong responsibility to protect personal privacy.

-by Jared Williams

Reference

Rizkallah, J. (2020). Hacking humans: Protecting our DNA from cybercriminals. Forbes. National Human Genome Research Institute. (2023). Genomic data privacy. https://www.genome.gov/