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

221–230 of 252 posts

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#221

Post by anonymouskimmer »

jacquesm wrote: post #219
eesmith wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no. That does not seem plausible at all. Again, the technology would be able to cure cancer. Do you really think all those employees - who know that their friends and family could be cured of their cancer - would be willing to keep mum of the cure?

> Again, the technology would be able to cure cancer. That's your strawman. But I can - easily, at that - imagine a POC that would be specific enough to kill a single human with a very high degree of success given some meta data about them and a sample of their DNA. I'm for obvious reasons not going to expand on that here because we have too many idiots in this world but the fact that you can't imagine such things do…

It would be easier to just novichok the person.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#222

Post by justinpombrio »

mminer237 wrote: post #191
justinpombrio wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that courts haven't even tested if terms of service are enforceable, never mind sudden updates to them.

The absolute limits of terms of service aren't clear, but there have been tons of cases about website/software terms of service. A quick search of Westlaw finds hundreds of reported cases in my state alone. There are certain things like binding arbitration that courts have found unconscionable to be in a clickwrap agreement[0], but generally terms of service have been found fully enforceable. There's definitely been…

I was repeating bad information then. Thank you for the correction!

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#223

Post by timthelion »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #186
timthelion wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another great on is that text size has legal meaning here. The larger/darker the text the greater the legal weight. So if the contract says two contradictory things, the larger text wins out...

Is that actually the law? Can I get a link to that? In slovenia we have a "suggest-to-government" website, and i'll put the working example there and hopefully at least gain some traction somewhere

Yes and no. The Czech law is very vague saying that contracts must be written in good will and be understandable by the signatories. It is the Czech supreme court which wrote up a legal test for understandability which you can find here https://www.epravo.cz/top/clanky/absolutni-zakaz-smluvnich-p...

I've translated the test using deepl:

Translation results

"In practice, the principle of fairness is manifested, inter alia, by the fact that the text of a consumer contract, especially if it is a form contract, should be sufficiently legible, clear and logically organised for the average consumer. For example, contractual terms must be of sufficient font size, not be significantly smaller than the surrounding text, and not be set out in sections which give the impression of being irrelevant. This principle of fairness also applies to the application of general terms and conditions. As stated in paragraph 9, general terms and conditions may also be applied in consumer contracts, but such application is subject not only to the formal limitations mentioned but also to restrictions as to content."

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#224

Post by anonymouskimmer »

jacquesm wrote: post #220
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really curious what, and how, these commenters think a genetic bioweapon would target. Cell-surface receptors seem the easy target, but as we've seen with COVID, and the more general swine and avian flus passing to humans, specificity changes. And cell surface receptors aren't that specific for any ethnicity, so expect a nuclear response from the survivors (both from your target and from the others states who had…

You are thinking in entirely the wrong direction.

I mentioned three different directions, it's not surprising I've missed one.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#225

Post by eesmith »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #218
eesmith wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no. That does not seem plausible at all. Again, the technology would be able to cure cancer. Do you really think all those employees - who know that their friends and family could be cured of their cancer - would be willing to keep mum of the cure?

It depends on how isolated they are kept from each other's work. It's not as if we don't already have decent cancer therapeutic technologies in the pipeline.

We do not have broad-spectrum anti-cancer therapeutics, much less ones which are based on self-reproducing communicable organisms that target the cancer's DNA.

If I'm wrong, what are you thinking of?

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#226

Post by anonymouskimmer »

eesmith wrote: post #225
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on how isolated they are kept from each other's work. It's not as if we don't already have decent cancer therapeutic technologies in the pipeline.

We do not have broad-spectrum anti-cancer therapeutics, much less ones which are based on self-reproducing communicable organisms that target the cancer's DNA. If I'm wrong, what are you thinking of?

Therapeutics which prompt the endogenous immune system to recognize the cancer cells as something to attack. I believe this is the basis of mRNA cancer therapeutics? I believe they are targeted for individual cancers and possibly individual people, but given the speed in which they can be made this doesn't seem like a major future hurdle.

Throw one into a gene therapy vector and it could conceivably reproduce itself (though that seems like a bad idea for a cancer therapeutic anyway).

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#227

Post by jacquesm »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #224
jacquesm wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are thinking in entirely the wrong direction.

I mentioned three different directions, it's not surprising I've missed one.

That's ok, I get it: I have the exact same thing when I'm too focused on a problem. And then a week later or so it's like a light bulb going off and I feel very silly for having missed the obvious. But let's not give people ideas here, this is pretty dangerous territory and I don't think HN should turn into a cookbook for miscreants.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#228

Post by jacquesm »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #221
jacquesm wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, the technology would be able to cure cancer. That's your strawman. But I can - easily, at that - imagine a POC that would be specific enough to kill a single human with a very high degree of success given some meta data about them and a sample of their DNA. I'm for obvious reasons not going to expand on that here because we have too many idiots in this world but the fact that you can't imagine such things do…

It would be easier to just novichok the person.

Maybe. Not always. Heads of state tend to be very well protected against such attacks for instance.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#229

Post by eesmith »

jacquesm wrote: post #219
eesmith wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no. That does not seem plausible at all. Again, the technology would be able to cure cancer. Do you really think all those employees - who know that their friends and family could be cured of their cancer - would be willing to keep mum of the cure?

> Again, the technology would be able to cure cancer. That's your strawman. But I can - easily, at that - imagine a POC that would be specific enough to kill a single human with a very high degree of success given some meta data about them and a sample of their DNA. I'm for obvious reasons not going to expand on that here because we have too many idiots in this world but the fact that you can't imagine such things do…

So what? Movie plot scenarios do not need to reflect reality.

I can easily imagine hopping on the next Pan Am rocket service to Luna City.

I can easily imagine using a space laser to kill that same human.

I can easily imagine taking a bridge from Key West to Cuba.

I can easily imagine taking a pill to regrow an amputated leg.

Just because you can easily imagine a POC doesn't mean it's doable in our lifetimes.

What are you going to target in the DNA? Is it a single short sequence or multiple markers across the genome? How does the bioweapon sequence that DNA to find it? How does that then trigger the appropriate biological response? How do you prevent mutations? What infectious organism will you use? How do you know the target isn't already immune to that infection?

Even if you expand on one or two of these in convincing detail (congrats on your future Nobel Prize, by the way), that's still not enough for the idiots in the world to make a usable weapon.

And so many easier ways to kill someone exist.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#230

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #82
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…

"... the owner of the social network cannot resell data to a third party)." Not sure I understand. Social media operators do not sell data. They provide access to computer users, acting like a Trojan Horse. ("Our app is installed on millions of phones. Millions people use some individual's website to communicate with each other." Zuckerberg, Musk, etc.) Perhaps "resell" refers to when social media companies buy data.…

They buy data. Sometimes it comes as part of an acquisition.

https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-doesnt-tell-user...

Sometimes it comes as part of an acquisition. https://www.cnet.com/news/facebooks-latest-mobile-acquisitio...

https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/lifestyle/everythi...

As everyone knows, they also give data away. https://www.fastcompany.com/40554491/zuckerberg-keeps-insist... https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/zuckerberg-facebook-data-... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/16/facebooks-zuckerberg-mulled-...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-data-... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/facebook-reportedly-gave-per...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/8/17435764/facebook-data-sha...

Using to term "sell" to describe these data transfers to other parties is ineffective. Prohibiting the "sale" of data will not stop social media companies from transferring data to others.

Post reply on HN