Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

stackdiary.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 252 posts

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#151

Post by rvba »

consumer451 wrote: post #33
anon35 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 2021 New Yorker article: How Your Family Tree Could Catch a Killer ( https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/22/how-your-famil... ) was incredibly illuminating and changed my perspective on our sense of privacy. With a surprisingly small fraction of the world's population sequenced, we can still match a sample to a person whose sequence we don't have . To quote the article: "Genetic genealogy, it turned out,…

This feels like a "think of the children" type of appeal. I personally don't have any murderous history to hide. But there are unintended consequences with all of these losses of privacy. As a peer comment has rightly pointed out, nation state adversaries now have these same profiles. Maybe they can find a common DNA profile for an efficient bio-weapon. Oops. I escaped an authoritarian regime as a child, thanks to th…

Can you share your bank history?

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#152

Post by georgedegennaro »

crote wrote: post #110
deckeraa wrote: post #7

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…

Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation". 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 con…

Only 14 days? You don’t get the gift card after the return in your country?

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#153

Post by jacquesm »

debok wrote: post #105
jacquesm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mention in the 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-know…

> I guess this happened because The Netherlands used to be a very religious nation?

Yes.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#154

Post by [deleted] »

Detrytus wrote: post #140
logifail wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it One (unintended?) consequence of this is that as a consumer, you cannot buy an annual digital motorway toll pass in Austria with immediate validity. The earliest your pass can start from is 18 days from the date of purchase. "Customers can withdraw from the online purchase of a digital vignette within 14 days. Taking into account a…

Some online services simply ask you to wave your 14-day return right if you want to start using the service immediately. Not sure why they won't do this in this case.

[deleted]

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#155

Post by j_maffe »

robertlagrant wrote: post #123
crote wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation". 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 con…

> and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation". Thinking in such simple terms is going to draw you to wrong conclusions. Hacker News doesn't complain. People discuss things. Different people have different opinions. And if they did - so what? You're phrasing this as though people talking on Hacker News would somehow overturn common law. > There is no need to mandate a tem…

I think GP was a valid comment about how people propping up business hostility is one of the main reasons consumer law is very weak in the US. Of course, people are allowed to have opinions. GP is arguing what the results of one of these opinions are.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#156

Post by eesmith »

janalsncm wrote: post #106
eesmith wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> How would you target "Christians" or "Americans" or "Hispanics"? 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.

I think you're missing the point.

Assuming you have a communicable bioweapon which is somehow able to target based on genetics, and assuming the rest of the world isn't able to defend against it, that still leaves the very tricky question of finding a genetic basis which characterizes any of those three categories in a way which is sufficiently effective.

Do you really believe there is way to identify "Christians" based on genetics?

"Incapacitating a sufficient number of a group" is NOT enough. You also need specificity.

What genetic markers indicate "American"? Sure, if you target something simple like "has a Y chromosome" you might take out about 50% of the US population, which is likely a sufficient number, but you'll do equal damage to your own population.

How would a bioweapon meaningfully target "Hispanics"? The term is definitely not based in genetics. If some villagers from a German town emigrated to Argentina and others from the same village emigrated to Canada, then according to the US the descendants of the first group are just as Hispanic as Black Spanish-speaking Cubans, while the descendants of the second group are "white".

But, okay, you've figured something out. Now how do you prevent your bioweapon from mutating the specificity away? You've added a lot of machinery to the organism which must be preserved perfectly even though that machinery isn't required in order to reproduce.

The more failsafes you put in, the bulkier the organism and/or the fewer genetic markers you can target.

Clearly you should be promoting DEI as a way to increase group robustness against future bioweapons. ;)

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#157

Post by osullip »

deckeraa wrote: post #7

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…

I'm a little lost here.

If you don't want a company to have your DNA, don't give it to them.

It seems like a business was built around people wanting to be told they had 20% more fun in their bloodline, for a fee. Those people didn't consider the implications of giving this kind of data to a private company. Now the company is saying, "we got the DNA you gave us, for a fee and we don't want to go to court to fight you about how we use it".

Just don't give them your DNA. It's not that hard.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#158

Post by acdha »

j_maffe wrote: post #155
robertlagrant wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation". Thinking in such simple terms is going to draw you to wrong conclusions. Hacker News doesn't complain. People discuss things. Different people have different opinions. And if they did - so what? You're phrasing this as though people talking on Hacker News would somehow overturn common law. > There is no need to mandate a tem…

I think GP was a valid comment about how people propping up business hostility is one of the main reasons consumer law is very weak in the US. Of course, people are allowed to have opinions. GP is arguing what the results of one of these opinions are.

I’d also use the comparison between what was claimed about EU regulations in the UK during the years leading up to Brexit, and subsequent developments. The money spent promoting those false claims was effective.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#159

Post by closewith »

Buttons840 wrote: post #93
bushbaba wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Require companies to make a reasonable effort to ensure users have read the license. Want to order some food from some new delivery website? Hold on, I just have to sit on this screen for 30 minutes pretending to read the EULA -- oh nevermind, I'll just go pick it up.

> Want to order some food from some new delivery website? Hold on, I just have to sit on this screen for 30 minutes pretending to read the EULA -- oh nevermind, I'll just go pick it up.

Well, that would be ideal, because in order to actually get users, the company would have to have very simple and reasonable terms. After all, that's the case for the cast majority of in-person businesses.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#160

Post by acdha »

mcpackieh wrote: post #138
crote wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation". 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 con…

> Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation". Literally, so what? I don't understand your point. You can't be under the impression that all laws must be popular with all people, so what does it matter if some ancrap libertarians complain about it? This shouldn't stop the implementation of such laws.

It’s more than “so what” because those people aren’t coming from nowhere. American businesses spend a lot of money promoting libertarianism to this end, and it’s been effective enough that any reforms will face unified opposition from every Republican in Congress and likely some Democrats. Most of these are minority positions in the public but not in terms of legislative votes.
Post reply on HN