231–240 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My go-to is "what if literal nazis come to power and use this information to kick-start their eugenics program", but I guess rampant capitalism is also on the threat list.
There are already businesses that practice eugenics based on illegal data like this or illegal maps
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the more common one I've heard is "Why do you care about privacy if you have nothing to hide?" In the case of 23andme, it's a perfect answer: We don't know what's hiding in our DNA and I don't know how people will use that against me in the future.
So, the reason for privacy is because the profit motive of capitalism is not sufficiently restrained as to protect citizens from being abused by corporations?
Does anyone think privacy of any real sort is maintainable going forward? Machine learning algorithms are learning to identify people just by their walk -- no face recognition required. Algorithms are moving toward being able to decipher text just by the audio of the keyboard being typed on. In short, given a gestalt of ALL public data and sufficiently advanced algorithms is there really a way for people to maintain…
Agreed, but also "privacy" is an abstraction that layers over the actual thing that people are worried about. Any answer to why do you care about hiding this information? can all be boiled down to the fear that "[person or group] might use [private data item] to create [bad outcome] for me." So the thing people actually care about is the risk of bad outcome, not the actual data itself. If your theory is correct, then…
It's more than that. Privacy affects the psychological context for daily activity and alters behavior, sometimes subtly, sometimes overty. If a person knows they have no privacy, they will go about life completely differently, and they will think about life completely differently.
Privacy is a freedom-of-thought, freedom-of-action, and also freedom-from-anxiety consideration.
Earlier 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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, the reason for privacy is because the profit motive of capitalism is not sufficiently restrained as to protect citizens from being abused by corporations?
Or a rival country could create a virus that targets 80% of their enemies population and only 20% of their own
Does anyone think privacy of any real sort is maintainable going forward? Machine learning algorithms are learning to identify people just by their walk -- no face recognition required. Algorithms are moving toward being able to decipher text just by the audio of the keyboard being typed on. In short, given a gestalt of ALL public data and sufficiently advanced algorithms is there really a way for people to maintain…
About a decade ago I knew people researching computer vision algorithms doing non-facial recognition (stuff like ear shape/gait/etc) because companies like Fortinet were trying to build "automated doormans" to apartment/condo complexes where they would scan and analyze any humans walking by the cameras placed at the door.
Not a lick of ethics from anyone involved.
What we need is rabid legislation that encodes a right to be forgotten, because clearly an expectation of privacy isn't enough. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with automating identification, but I do think there's a lot wrong with companies trying to do it for every human being that they can possibly find without any consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What do you think will happen to people who had their ancestry data stolen here? Sounds like an absolute treasure trove for a life insurance company. Or, would you disagree?
>Sounds like an absolute treasure trove for a life insurance company. Or, would you disagree? Disagree. Life insurance companies already requir blood tests and urine tests before insuring a consumer. They already have this data
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can help track down distant family members who have committed crimes? Sounds like a plus. I think the angst about this comes from men who don't want their status as fathers of illegitimate children (or, rapists when they were younger) unmasked.
Your father submits his DNA to 23 and Me. One of your brothers committed a crime. The police, during an investigation, find your father's data and realize that one of his children is the criminal. Congratulations! You are now the target of an investigation, the purpose of which may not be to find the truth, but to successfully convict a suspect.
All you have to do to clear your name for that crime is to turn over your DNA to the police to be in their records forever[1], and Bob's [2] your brother [3].
[1] - You might be able to get a court to order that your DNA records are destroyed after proving your innocence, but it's an ask to believe this would actually happen in every case.
[2] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bob
bob 3 of 7 verb (2) bobbed; bobbing
transitive verb
1) obsolete : deceive, cheat
2) obsolete : to take by fraud : filch
[3] - https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bobs-your-uncle.html