CRISPR and war

>>8476184
>Take a sample of DNA from target
>Design a CRISPR virus to attack that DNA sequence specifically
>Virus causes only mild symptoms in everyone except target
>Virus eventually finds its way to the target and starts manufacturing toxins once it gets inside them

>>8476209

If you have access to a targets DNA, you would more than likely also have access to the target.

I guess CRISPR would be an incredibly niche method of assassination.

>>8476215
>If you have access to a targets DNA, you would more than likely also have access to the target.
No?

Say you hacked a federal DNA database.

>>8476216

You don't need a physical DNA sample of the target?

>>8476227
you can encode DNA as a string of bits and do computation with it. You don't need direct access to anything physical from a person once someone has had their information uploaded into a database.

This way, you can launch a CRISPR attack without ever even seeing the person who you plan to attack. But realistically this wont work because nobody is going to hack a federal database with actual DNA records on the public and on top of that have access to fucking CRISPR. The powers that be surely wouldnt be that sloppy with their security measures, especially when it comes to protecting their own lives.

>>8476252

There's always the possibility of the powers that be using it themselves.

>>8476209
Good luck making it specific to only one person and getting a virus that is hampered by a crispr payload to spread. This would be waaaaaay more expensive than just shooting them.

>>8476254
I would assume that in the future any place with crispr tech is going to be under 24/7 surveillance and anything made using it will have to be open source and readable at least by the government. I highly doubt the government will let people create propietary strands of genetic information with God knows what on it and unleash it into nature.