"As such, when a person from New York moves around the World and interacts with various health services, the DNA itself is tracked. Should an organ of undocumented DNA be discovered then the blockchain would reveal this - along with probable sources (DNA proximity) with sufficient evidence upon which to mount an investigation."
This would necessitate the identification of the person, and therefore the DNA would need to be linked to personal data. There seems no way around this.
Another issue is that DNA can be used to attack computers. DNA can be crafted so that computers analyzing it are infected with malware, as unlikely as this seems. This may not be hard to prevent, but I cannot myself consider how this might be achieved. I am not competent.
Neither can I think of a way that a publicly auditable blockchain might be prevented from being abused by any number of entities.
I agree that punitive intent is pointless. Rather the prevention of harm is what I seek.
Thanks!
I am not sure if I explained my thought on this well enough. :c)
Imagine a blockchain thread of information that is not linked to your name or your ID but to your DNA.
Furthermore that information is not at any point linked to the person.
If you have a procedure where you gain a kidney, on the blockchain, there is a link between your DNA and the other person's DNA - and that's it. There is 'point-of-contact' and your non-blockchain medical history will (probably) still indicate that you had a transplant - but your blockchain self is considered separately from yourself.
This promotes transparent access to and processing of data on the blockchain - without compromising personal data. Or at least - its as near to such a situation as I can presently envision.
As for computers being infected by [insert file-type here] - once upon a time it was images, then it was flash files. Now it seems to be DNA. These are exploits that are either not envisioned - or deliberately designed into systems (Y2K).
Its only a matter of time before a blockchain AI virus comes to be. 'WZ2100 Nexus' anyone? ;c)
In any case - this is the problem with following through with accountable transparency as a data policy. It inherently crosses privacy.
Thank you again for the insights - and stop knocking yourself on the blockchain. :cP
What I was alluding to earlier was that absent information regarding the identity of the donor of the material, such a record would not prevent organ theft/murder. Since all of us can be donors, all our identities would be necessarily included. Absent identifying information, and public auditability, I cannot see how such a system might pose a hazard to illegally obtained material, and those that purvey it.
I don't reckon I am knocking myself if I simply acknowledge my limitations. I consider that a feature, not a flaw =p
The idea is that if a person to receive a transplant, and the DNA of the organ itself can be traced to a particular location - as the DNA itself has a history - then it would be far more difficult to pass off conflict organs as legitimate.
Why? Because from birth there would be information about such organs - and in the absence of such - or in the event that the data indicates overlap with potential risk factors - such as presence in a conflict zone - then flags are raised.
In the event of genuine donors in conflict zones - I am sure that appropriate seals of approval can bridge the gap.
Of course - at contact with the medical system - the person is associated with a DNA blockchain - through his or her DNA. But its as disassociated as one can be - I reckon.
And glad to hear you're not knocking yourself. Feature noted. ;c)
I am willing to try any reasonably promising effort at providing provenance of transplant material, or identity of the trafficked, that provides assurance such a registry won't be used to augment the surveillance state.
I reckon that public auditability and identification are features of the idea that aren't easily dismissed, and that 'seals of approval' are assurances of expropriation and perversion of any public service by forces of corruption.
I have little familiarity with extant mechanisms, that I am sure must exist, to assure provenance of transplant material, but am certain they have failed, and that they involve such 'seals of approval'.
It is the auditability of the blockchain by the public that provides any assurance of integrity. I cannot overstate my cynicism regarding integrity of government, or any other authority. I have direct personal experience with my HIPAA data being provided to nefarious parties.
I cannot trust any attestation of integrity. The integrity of such a system is only potential insofar as it is publicly auditable, IMHO.