321–330 of 372 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would that avoid PII? One assumes there would need to be an email address to recover that account, and that would likely link to every single detail about the owner.
If “the account” is just a random number, then what is there to recover?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not directly, afaik they never transferred the data. However they sold access to the data to a bug pharma company (GSK). This was widely publicized. Not sure if that counts: GSK had some ability to look at the data but didn’t have an on premise copy of it. Also, I worked on the GDPR deletion project. I can attest that they do best effort to delete your data when your request that. At least when I was there, this was…
Is the data actually deleted in non-GDPR countries as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just for some perspective from outside the US: I work at a bank in a country subject to GDPR. I have access to customer data, as do most people on my team.
I worked at a US startup from my world country and that company dealt exclusively with PII (i.e. IDs, face etc) of people, including from the armed forces, of NA and some European countries. I had access to any data I wanted to see, download on my work laptop (we all worked remotely). I didn't have to ask anyone, I didn't have to justify it, and AFAIK it was not audited. Logged? I don't know, maybe it was. I had sent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. Someone who has their data in 23andme was someplace where something horrible happened. Law enforcement has no leads, so they process the DNA, and find no matches. They subpoena 23andme (or just look at the leaked data, who knows), and that person is now a person of interest. If they don't know they should have a lawyer on their side with them when being questioned, they might talk themselves into prison. Now im…
I know it's not exactly the point, but the answer is you always have a lawyer if you're being questioned by the police, especially if you're not the one who called them. This is in no way specific to any DNA related situation. If any law enforcement shows up and has questions for you, you say nothing until you have a lawyer with you.
IMO the hearsay rule is way too biased in favor of the government.
Worse! Say you know it's police asking you questions, and the questions are all very harmless, so you answer them, but then you start to get an inkling that you are a suspect, that they like you for some crime, so now you shut up and/or lawyer up, but guess what: your disposition's change from cooperative to non-cooperative can and will be used against you in a court of law!! What, you say? Yes, the SCOTUS in the 2010s (see Salinas vs. Texas, from.. 2014 IIRC) greatly reduced the 5th Amendment's protections in this way. If you're talking then clam up, the fact that you clammed up -and at what particular question- can be used against you. And if you never said a word to them, that too can be used against you! The only thing that works is to tell them very early on that you will only talk to them with your lawyer present [and since you don't have a lawyer yet you might never talk to them] then follow through.
If the police are talking to you it's either a) they think your testimony can convict someone else, and/or b) they like you for some crime and want to give you ample opportunity to convict yourself of it even if you didn't commit it (they may not know that, but they may like you so much for it that their bias is too strong to see that you're innocent) and even if you have no idea what the heck they're talking about (because they don't even have to tell you).
See all of professor James Duane's videos on this topic, starting with Don't Talk to Police (this one is pre-Salinas), and then the later post-Salinas reprise(s) of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it's not exactly the point, but the answer is you always have a lawyer if you're being questioned by the police, especially if you're not the one who called them. This is in no way specific to any DNA related situation. If any law enforcement shows up and has questions for you, you say nothing until you have a lawyer with you.
Lawyers are expensive. Most people can't afford one for even one encounter with the police, let alone multiple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it helped a number of children conceived via IVF (he had provided a sample for fertility testing many years before) identify and contact him Wait, so a sample he submitted for fertility testing was used to impregnate a number of women? Without his knowledge?
That's a good question- I think he signed a consent form that would have allowed additional research on his donations. TBH my dad was suprised but pleased by the outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The resignation implication is that the CEO is running the company to the ground. The comment further implies this is on purpose in order to buy the company cheaply.
Since CEOs typically own a lot of stock and are compensated for performance, doesn’t that seem like a strange theory? Intentionally destroying a company you run and own shares in so you can buy more shares seems like a really complicated and high risk strategy compared to just running it well, making a fortune, and getting an even bigger CEO gig.
If they were to reorganize first and produce a company worth as much as its competitors, they only get eg 5% of eg 30B, which after taxes makes them maybe a billionaire. Reorg and do the same thing and they could be looking at control and $10-20B.
Where tens of billions of dollars are involved, “really complicated” and “high risk” plays are basically table stakes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My most radical political opinion is that we need a right to privacy enshrined in a constitutional amendment. And it needs to be robust enough to prevent the government from subpoenaing data collected by private companies.
The 4th Amendment should already do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took an alternate approach: my genome is freely available: https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/hu80855C When I was sequenced, a bunch of genetic counselors at Illumina analyzed it and said they couldn't find a single gene mutation that was linked to increased risk of disease, which was a surprise to me but is really absence of information rather than information of absence.
This is very unethical and you should be ashamed of yourself. You leaked 50% of your direct relatives here, 50% of any future or current children you have. Did you ask them for consent?
(no, I did not ask my children or my spouse or my parents or any other relatives for "consent").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very unethical and you should be ashamed of yourself. You leaked 50% of your direct relatives here, 50% of any future or current children you have. Did you ask them for consent?
Perhaps my ethical framework does not match your framework? Note that I start from the premise that genetic data is not possible to keep secret (you shed skin cells in public, state-level agents can get warrants to grab a cup you used from the garbage, etc). (no, I did not ask my children or my spouse or my parents or any other relatives for "consent").
But do you think there might be a difference between leaving out a cup of coffee you drank from versus publishing it and advertising it online?