"hackers stole" == "company sold"
sed s/"hackers stole"/"company sold"/g
23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9M users
31–40 of 321 posts
Re: 23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9M users
#32How much does that have to do with their TOS update which went out on thanksgiving DAY (the most perfect time to get lost in everyone’s inboxes). The TOS update somehow tries to forbid class actions, requires you to go through an “informal” 60 day process before any legal action, and forces you into binding arbitration. Functionally you as a customer have next to no legal rights, according to 23andMe lawyers who cook…
Does this hold up in court?
At least in Germany any contracts that are heavily in favor of one side will be declared void if it comes to court.
Re: 23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9M users
#33How much does that have to do with their TOS update which went out on thanksgiving DAY (the most perfect time to get lost in everyone’s inboxes). The TOS update somehow tries to forbid class actions, requires you to go through an “informal” 60 day process before any legal action, and forces you into binding arbitration. Functionally you as a customer have next to no legal rights, according to 23andMe lawyers who cook…
Does this hold up in court? At least in Germany any contracts that are heavily in favor of one side will be declared void if it comes to court.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer the question, but it will defintely complicate going to court, and I'm confident that the company has more lawyers and more money for lawyers than the average user. A class action suit may follow, but only if enough people and lawyers are willing, and it'll likely end up with a pittance in damages paid in a settlement, eventually.
Re: 23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9M users
#34This disaster is the perfect counter-argument to those always saying "why do you care so much about privacy. It doesn't affect you when I share things. You can just choose not to do it", except no, I can't choose when we're relatives and you chose to share our genome. It is so obvious that your relatives sharing their genomic data with 23andMe reveals a lot of information about you. We can only hope people will reali…
I'm in favor of privacy, and I'm willing to go more out of my way to not share than the vast majority of people, but I'm also in favor of individual choice, and I can't think of a privacy model that would disallow other people from sharing their information just because you have some matching information.
But if it's genetic information, it's not your data alone.
It's your data, your parents' data, your childrens data etc.
Re: 23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9M users
#35"Luckily we are now offering a genome monitoring service. For only $79.99 per month you can be sure that you're alerted any time someone tries to access your genetic record!" - 23andMe
Re: 23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9M users
#36It does feel at this point that any company collecting data will be hacked, it's only a matter of "when" and no "if"...
Re: 23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9M users
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this hold up in court? At least in Germany any contracts that are heavily in favor of one side will be declared void if it comes to court.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer the question, but it will defintely complicate going to court, and I'm confident that the company has more lawyers and more money for lawyers than the average user. A class action suit may follow, but only if enough people and lawyers are willing, and it'll likely end up with a pittance in damages paid in a settlement, eventually.
What really interests me is "Are ToS changes absolutely binding?"
I am also not a lawyer. But I think there are two types of changes to ToS.
One is purely administrative. For example, they might change the methods available to reach for support. For example, they might say that you are no longer able to send a Fax to get support help. Or that their domain name changed.
Second is something that changes the service that you are receiving. For example, when you have bought their product they said "we are offering free support for all owners or our doodad". But then one day they decide that support is now paid option for all existing customers.
So the question is: can ToS changes that changes the service/product that you have already paid for binding without your consent? If they decide to introduce extra protection from class action, requirement for arbitrage, etc. is this just administrative or is it actually changing the service you are receiving by restricting your rights?
Re: 23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9M users
#38How much does that have to do with their TOS update which went out on thanksgiving DAY (the most perfect time to get lost in everyone’s inboxes). The TOS update somehow tries to forbid class actions, requires you to go through an “informal” 60 day process before any legal action, and forces you into binding arbitration. Functionally you as a customer have next to no legal rights, according to 23andMe lawyers who cook…
Does this hold up in court? At least in Germany any contracts that are heavily in favor of one side will be declared void if it comes to court.
In the US, yes, these kinds of contracts are unfortunately upheld under current laws and court rulings that are valid nationwide. Of course there are limits and exceptions, but those boundaries have been broadened in recent decades to allow these kinds of terms anywhere in the US, even for consumer contracts.
Re: 23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9M users
#39"Luckily we are now offering a genome monitoring service. For only $79.99 per month you can be sure that you're alerted any time someone tries to access your genetic record!" - 23andMe
The scumbags received what they deserve. Just don't be a 23andme's used.
Re: 23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9M users
#40It does feel at this point that any company collecting data will be hacked, it's only a matter of "when" and no "if"...
They even don't need to be hacked if the Government wants to receive/alter the data.