251–260 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is tin-foil hat nonsense.
It is becoming far easier than you are aware then. Sam Harris and Rob Reid discussed in length a few years ago. https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/spe...
Ah yeah, exactly who you should go to for bio-engineering advice
This won't change until our government starts punishing (not 10M fines) hacked companies for leaking private data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it materially impact your life to send me a video each time you use the restroom? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean you’re comfortable with it being shared.
That counts, can you show an example of this data being used in that way? In literally any way at all, has this data actually been used for anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That counts, can you show an example of this data being used in that way? In literally any way at all, has this data actually been used for anything?
It's being sold illegally on the dark web; how do you propose we tell you how it's being used?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please provide one concrete example where this leaked information was used to materially impact someone's life that would not have otherwise been possible without the leak. Absent that, the argument holds that screeching declarations about privacy tend to be overblown.
Goalposts keep being pushed: * You don't have to care about privacy if you didn't do anything illegal. * If you do care about it, you can just choose not to share your information. * If you don't share but your data is still leaked, it didn't affect your life anyway. The point is an average person is incapable of having boundaries with these corporations who have all their data and benefit from it, and we have no way…
The point is that these privacy claims are nearly exclusively theoretical. Privacy advocates constantly tell anyone who will listen about the complete destruction of privacy in modern society, and yet nothing even resembling the consequences they claim will occur is actually happening.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do I know they didn't use them? They already did something with my biological samples (storing for a different purpose than when they drew my blood) without my consent nor informing me. And also - could eg. police use it?
I am not sure, only guessing. But why would they ask for permission in the firs place? > They already did something with my biological samples I can only guess you were tested for something in the hospital. Samples are sent to the lab (separate department) to be tested. If additional tests need to be perform they can use the blood they already received. The samples are kept for ready availability if additional tests…
See https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq... under "Should the initial consent ... be repeated or supplemented?" and I think this is the law: (45 CFR 46.116(b)(5)).
I never seriously considered using 23 and me. Not because of hackers, but rather what government would do with that information. I don't want to be responsible for some random relative getting charged with a crime just because I was curious about my family tree.
Have they used these sorts of databases to charge things other than murder and rape? The cases I have seen solved by way of this technology, I would very much feel glad that something I did led to stopping someone doing seriously bad things.
Data that isn't about you doesn't actually belong to you.