101–110 of 252 posts
"If you have not notified us... you will be deemed to have agreed..." Is changing the terms of a service agreement with no confirmation/acceptance from the user even legal or enforceable?
Part of the initial terms of service that you agree to is that the terms can be changed by the company at any time as long as they give you X days of notice.
The more TOS I read through, the more it seems we need a "common law" solution. (I use the term "common law" loosely here) Something like a couple of pre-defined categories for software services (e.g. info provider, social network, real-world interface) with pre-set rules (e.g. the client cannot attempt to break the social network; the owner of the social network cannot re-sell data to a third party). We have somethi…
The easy answer should be TOS that are not non lawyer readable or not under N paragraphs are not binding. When you buy a house you don’t give 1 signature. You literally sign every friggen page including multiple places on the same page, TOS shouldn’t be different
The more TOS I read through, the more it seems we need a "common law" solution. (I use the term "common law" loosely here) Something like a couple of pre-defined categories for software services (e.g. info provider, social network, real-world interface) with pre-set rules (e.g. the client cannot attempt to break the social network; the owner of the social network cannot re-sell data to a third party). We have somethi…
"If you have not notified us... you will be deemed to have agreed..." Is changing the terms of a service agreement with no confirmation/acceptance from the user even legal or enforceable?
Polish Competition and Consumer Protection Office looked at the terms and conditions for subscriptions to various Amazon services available in Poland and in a message published in the press yesterday office chairman says:
> "(...) companies Amazon EU and Amazon Digital UK had procedures in place that allowed unilateral price changes from the new subscription period onward. This type of condition is particularly detrimental to customers in situations where a payment card (debit or credit card) has been assigned to the account, and the operator grants itself the right to automatically charge the new amount for the next subscription period."
> "We have been advocating for years that contractual terms should fairly regulate the obligations of the contracting parties. In the case of subscription services, which are gaining popularity, consumers trust the service provider and entrust their payment card data to access and pay their obligations on a regular basis. >>This does not mean that from that point on, operators can, without their consent, charge more than what consumers had previously agreed to
> "It is unacceptable to automatically charge according to the amended price list in the form of blocking the funds from the connected payment card or unilaterally introducing significant changes in the contractual terms,"
https://uokik.gov.pl/aktualnosci.php?news_id=20132 - the message in Polish
It's about Amazon here but the office investigates subscription services offered by other companies as well. Amazon EU and Amazon Digital UK cooperated with the office and now will notify their customers about the upcoming changes allowing them to refuse these and break contracts without any penalites. This work for ISP providers already - they can't change contracts at own whims; tho, they can pest you with phones with "totally new tied for your needs plans".
It's possible to push companies to change their behavior but I doubt this could apply to a specific service that 23andMe is. Although, this data breach might force data protection offices from various countries to look closer what they're doing here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hah, beautiful, well done. But yours isn't nearly so...catchy looking...as the New Yorker version.
Yes, I suck at the eye candy department. Function over form any day for me. You should see my e-bike, it is quite literally covered in duct tape (it was meant temporary, but we all know how that goes). Also: https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/ Which is probably my best article.
> Which undoubtedly well meaning civil servant long before World War II came up with the brilliant idea of registering religious affiliation during the census is lost in the mists of time.
I guess this happened because The Netherlands used to be a very religious nation?
I mean, in 1901 they got Abraham Kuyper[0] as a prime minister. Abraham Kuyper was a Christian minister, and is well-known among Reformed Christian circles as a very impactful theologian.
It is very understandable that a nation like that would want to list religion as part of their census data.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Kuyper>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, exactly. And that DNA profile could be more or less specific as well to the point where you can commit genocide. Think 'final solution', not 'James Bond'.
There will be several Nobel Prizes in creating the technology to get this bioweapon. You need something which reproduces itself even in non-targets, which enters the cell's nucleus, which detects the correct DNA - which may be scattered across the genome! -, which has a mechanism that kills the target people, and where none of this will mutate so as to stop effectiveness, change/broaden the target population, etc. Fu…
You don’t need to have a 1:1 mapping in order to be effective. Incapacitating a sufficient number of a group is enough.
Similarly, such a bioweapon in an assassination context doesn’t need to only kill the target or go unnoticed. It’s enough that it is a disease or irritant that a particular individual is susceptible to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they can find a common DNA profile for an efficient bio-weapon. Oops. I think we already reached the end of the bioweapon tech tree with Sarin gas.
No, you are misreading the GP. What they mean is a bioweapon specifically tailored to match a particular DNA profile. Think Germany, 1939, or South Africa, 1985, but with this capability to see what the possibilities are and how utterly unstoppable that would be. And probably there are contemporary examples as well, but I don't feel like starting a flame-fest.
I guess if you could target one person specifically? But then again there are way easier ways to kill people.
"If you have not notified us... you will be deemed to have agreed..." Is changing the terms of a service agreement with no confirmation/acceptance from the user even legal or enforceable?
To: arbitrationoptout@23andme.com Subject: Request to Opt-Out of Updated TOS 23andMe Team, I am contacting you regarding the recent changes to the 23andMe Terms of Service, dated November 30, 2023. My name is [your name as registered with 23andMe], and the email associated with my 23andMe account is [your 23andMe account email]. I hereby formally request to opt out of the newly updated Terms of Service. I do not cons…
Any mode of transmission where you can prove you sent it but don't send it just by email.
The more TOS I read through, the more it seems we need a "common law" solution. (I use the term "common law" loosely here) Something like a couple of pre-defined categories for software services (e.g. info provider, social network, real-world interface) with pre-set rules (e.g. the client cannot attempt to break the social network; the owner of the social network cannot re-sell data to a third party). We have somethi…
There are plenty of European countries which already have some laws like these. When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it. I am guaranteed to have a reasonable warranty. Companies cannot abuse my personal data without explicit consent. And indeed, forced binding arbitrage is also not allowed.
There is no need to mandate a template ToS, you just need basic consumer protection laws.