141–150 of 402 posts
Automatically opting-in customers to a more restrictive TOS is pretty suspect, especially given the timing. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that a court would not allow that, given that the TOS was changed AFTER the breach and it's pretty clear that the company is trying to avoid legal issues after-the-fact. I would expect the court would evaluate any breach under the TOS that was in effect at the time of the breach, rath…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not with names and contact information I assume?
If you were smart enough to hack 23andMe to get genetic data to find a specific person, you'd be smart enough to reconstruct identities from publicly available data. You'd just have to cross-reference public anonymous databases with public non-anonymous ones. Both of which exist, and are free. So far, the only real use-case for doing this is people trying to identify criminals from just DNA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everyone opted in as such. My wife has an identical twin who sent in a test.
Presumably neither you, your kids, or your wife, has grounds to sue them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the long run, I think keeping your genetic information private will be untenable- the potential benefits will outweigh the drawbacks. Can you give an example? > Plus, anyone sufficiently motivated could get your DNA somehow, you shed your DNA everywhere you go, no getting around that. That assumes there's someone out to get you specifically. That's like saying there's no point in having 2FA or strong passwords,…
> Can you give an example? See my other comment, but in short I essentially mean the true realization of "precision medicine" and gaining a greater understanding of how different genotypes result in disease, information which can be used guide treatment and to develop better treatments. > That assumes there's someone out to get you specifically. Not entirely true- the ability to reconstruct genotypes from environment…
> Unlike your password, your DNA is unencrypted and gets spread everywhere.
This doesn't address the point. In both cases, someone sufficiently motivated could get what they want from you. So by your argument, there's no point in maintaining privacy for either piece of information (DNA / passwords).
I have tried to quickly diff the previous TOS with the new one and I wasn't able to identify any big changes. I would like to know what the actual changes are. I see a lot of articles criticizing the new TOS, but no one is showing the actual wording differences. Does anyone have an actual diff?
Automatically opting-in customers to a more restrictive TOS is pretty suspect, especially given the timing. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that a court would not allow that, given that the TOS was changed AFTER the breach and it's pretty clear that the company is trying to avoid legal issues after-the-fact. I would expect the court would evaluate any breach under the TOS that was in effect at the time of the breach, rath…
I hate this timeline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. A small tangent for anyone who has seen these: they’re very clearly not specifically enforceable. I got a window banged up by things falling off a truck with this signage, and the first thing they said when I called their “How Am I Driving” number the first thing they said was that they were not responsible citing this sign. Fortunately that sign was non binding. :)
Georgia (state) takes it a step further. They wrote an exemption to the license plate law that allows dump truck owners to display the plate only on the front of the vehicle. Makes it that much harder to hold them accountable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Not responsible for black eye if something falls from your vehicle and damages my vehicle.”
Except that the truck driver has zero fault for the gravel on the road and the spacing between the tires and the mud guard of the truck his employer maintains. Or did you mean you’d seek out the ceo of the truck company and give them a black eye?
If it's random gravel from the road it's more understandable. But even then the driver is very much responsible for the mud guards on the truck they are operating, just as the police would write a ticket to the driver for worn down tires or broken lights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't need to supply accurate information, this isn't a bank here with any validation of your identity.
You can at least change your name. You can't change your DNA, so when companies start selling that data it will be easy to detect when you give out fake information. The only missing piece is a way to scan your DNA as part of a login form.