We've covered this topic before, but with the growing number of people taking DNA tests and having problems interpreting their results, I think it's time we came to a definitive conclusion before we let too many rabbits out of the hat by accident rather than deliberately, so to speak.
We've always taken a firm stance not to allow the publication of PIFI (personally identifiable information) for living or potentially-living individuals. However, do we as a community understand/agree what this means for DNA questions?
I think we'd all agree that publishing raw DNA results (for youself or for anyone else) should not be allowed (anonymised or not) -- if it's somebody else's data, it's a breach of their privacy, and if it's your own data, it falls in the same category as posting your address and phone number in questions or answers -- incredibly unwise as a minimum, and unlikely to be of relevance to anybody else as part of a question anyway.
I think we'd all agree the necessity for anonymising any data that is published, removing names, email addresses and DNA kit numbers. But what about chromosome data -- is there anything more personally identifying than that...?
Even murkier is publishing extracts/summaries of data -- for example, how one (anonymised) kit triangulates with other (anonymised) kits.
On one hand, this includes personal data about probably-living individuals and their relationships that the OP may or may not have permission to publish. As we can't check that they have permission, should we remove it if it appears? And does it matter if it's already been openly published before -- although we might not know that it was published with the permission of the individual concerned. Oh, dear...
On the other hand, the anonymised data in question may not currently be traceable back to to an individual, so that would be OK, wouldn't it? Unless and until unforeseen techniques become available in future that can lead to identification. Or somebody recognised their own data when googling around. Should we err on the side of caution? Do we even know where that is?
On the gripping hand, sometimes the data might be necessary to get a useful answer to a question. Might that mean the question is too narrowly applicable to a single person? Can it be edited to be of wider utility, by illustrating some general principles and approaches, or just explaining how a particular site compares kits and displays results, so the OP and others can better understand how to intepret their own data? Is it possible to ask the question using totally-fabricated data (which of course assumes you understand the problem well enough to construct fabricated data that illustrates the reality). And isn't all that too complicated and a shed-load of work that nobody will ever bother with?
I believe we need a set of simple(ish) guidelines that makes it clear what we expect from posters to protect the privacy of individuals but enable the asking and answering of generally-applicable questions about genetic genealogy. (We probably also want to make clear that medical genealogy is off-topic, as our questions about (e.g.) do my genes mean my father was red-haired...)
I just don't know what those guidelines are however.