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

241–250 of 252 posts

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#241

Post by account42 »

georgedegennaro wrote: post #152
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…

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

14 days is the minimum legal requirement for returns without having to state a reason. And they have to give you back real money no some funny store currency. There are also munimum warranty periods.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#242

Post by account42 »

refactor_master wrote: post #49
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

We all know how cookie consents turned out though.

It keeps exposing how little most businesses care about their users? Seems useful.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#243

Post by account42 »

gen220 wrote: post #19
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…

It's difficult because digital ToS are so tightly tailored to your business, and digital businesses are so malleable and formless. If you went through the effort to standardize your ToS, it would only be "useful" to a tiny handful of businesses at specific points in their growth trajectory. Regulations like GDPR are a top-down approach to the privacy component of a Terms of Service (i.e. there are only so many variat…

> If you went through the effort to standardize your ToS, it would only be "useful" to a tiny handful of businesses at specific points in their growth trajectory.

Sounds like the kind of language used by people who consider consumer protection to something to work around to maximise profit. Yeah, those businesses can get fucked.

> That being said, as a privacy-respecting entrepreneur, coming up with a "user-respecting" (i.e. win/win, legible, minimally-demanding/withholding) ToS is a sizable challenge. It'd be nice to have templates. I basically resort to reading the ToS of companies I respect in similar verticals.

Its only a sizable challenge if you want to seize more rights for yourself than is already guaranteed by existing laws.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#244

Post by account42 »

nicd wrote: post #78
space_fountain wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? Often ToS seem to mostly consist of boilerplate that's copied from business to business

Imagine there were a set of a few common terms that businesses could select, each with an icon, a high-level explanation, and the detailed legal copy. I think there is a common set of those that would probably cover 80% of needs. The remaining 20% could be "extended", custom terms for this company. Such a system seems like it would make things much easier for consumers to understand, and also save legal fees for most…

There is already a set of common terms although businesses don't get more of a say there than other people.

Those terms also don't have icons but they usually shorthands you can use to refer to them. GDPR is a pretty well known one but there are many more.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#245

Post by account42 »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #90
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…

Personally, I'd like for it to be illegal to force people into TOSes which add binding arbitration to access their accounts and data once they've already time and money into the system otherwise. I shouldn't be negatively impacted regarding my rights to data or damages just because you were careless with my data. Likewise, any explicit agreement to legal remedy should really be in its own independent section for user…

Personally I'd like for binding arbitration to be unenforceable period. It's a hack to work around the laws of the country by preventing people from availing themselves of this and should be treated as such.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#246

Post by Obscurity4340 »

Ephil012 wrote: post #92
Obscurity4340 wrote: post #77

Is there an actually privacy-respectful genome service like this or is 23&me literally the only game in town(the world)?

Your best bet is probably to go through a doctor and get testing from a medical genome sequencing service that is covered under HIPAA. I am not 100% sure if this is bulletproof, but it is probably better than going through a DTC company. Plus, most DTC companies like 23 and me use imprecise genome sequencing and not full genome sequencing like many medical providers do.

So 23&me isn't even like the gold standard re:genomic analysis/testing? They're basically just the Dell of testing?

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#247

Post by gen220 »

account42 wrote: post #243
gen220 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult because digital ToS are so tightly tailored to your business, and digital businesses are so malleable and formless. If you went through the effort to standardize your ToS, it would only be "useful" to a tiny handful of businesses at specific points in their growth trajectory. Regulations like GDPR are a top-down approach to the privacy component of a Terms of Service (i.e. there are only so many variat…

> If you went through the effort to standardize your ToS, it would only be "useful" to a tiny handful of businesses at specific points in their growth trajectory. Sounds like the kind of language used by people who consider consumer protection to something to work around to maximise profit. Yeah, those businesses can get fucked. > That being said, as a privacy-respecting entrepreneur, coming up with a "user-respectin…

Respectfully, have you ever tried to write a ToS?

Part of the ToS is explaining exactly what you do as a business with users' data and IP that they submit to your service. If you're maximally ethical, you still have to outline everything, and yes doing this concisely + precisely is a challenge.

Pulling an example out of a hat, see Mullvad's ToS[1] and Privacy Policy[2], and "No Logging" Policy [3].

I wouldn't say (at all) that Mullvad is trying to seize more rights that those guaranteed by existing laws, and yet maintaining their ToS almost certainly costs tens of thousands of dollars per year.

[1]: https://mullvad.net/en/help/terms-service

[2]: https://mullvad.net/en/help/privacy-policy

[3]: https://mullvad.net/en/help/no-logging-data-policy

---

For another example, see Bandcamp's Terms of Use [1]. They straddle the line of social media (where you need the platform to be an effective moderator, which requires extensive ToU) and the music industry (which involves much liability around various IP rights).

Bandcamp isn't really screwing anybody. IMO the most objectionable thing they do is provide Google Analytics as a service to paid musicians. But the lines around that are [1]: https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#248

Post by anonymouskimmer »

eesmith wrote: post #237
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misinterpreting my initial objection. Skunkworkers would care less about the personal ramifications of keeping technology which could be used to cure cancer secret if there are already viable full-cure treatments for all of the cancers they or their family members may plausibly come down with.

Again, technology isn't in a vacuum. You really can't predict what medicine will be like in 100 years. If there are already viable full-cure treatments for all those cancers then why aren't there viable full-cure treatments for this sort of bioweapon? Feeling ill? Sequence all the organisms in your blood, spot the unexpected ones, develop a vaccine/phage against it, and poof - all better. Sure, you can construct movi…

> If there are already viable full-cure treatments for all those cancers then why aren't there viable full-cure treatments for this sort of bioweapon?

Plenty of possibilities. A cancer is ultimately a mutated genome in a viable cell gone awry. Even with contagious cancers (like the one killing the Tasmanian Devils) you're still ultimately dealing with an infectious eukaryotic cell of basically the same species type as the organism, and our mammalian immune systems are already used to targeting our own cells gone awry. Viruses, satellite viruses, prokaryotes, other eukaryotes, edited out, and whatever I'm forgetting will require a diversity of approaches (unless someone invents pico-scale teleportation).

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#249

Post by eesmith »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #248
eesmith wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, technology isn't in a vacuum. You really can't predict what medicine will be like in 100 years. If there are already viable full-cure treatments for all those cancers then why aren't there viable full-cure treatments for this sort of bioweapon? Feeling ill? Sequence all the organisms in your blood, spot the unexpected ones, develop a vaccine/phage against it, and poof - all better. Sure, you can construct movi…

> If there are already viable full-cure treatments for all those cancers then why aren't there viable full-cure treatments for this sort of bioweapon? Plenty of possibilities. A cancer is ultimately a mutated genome in a viable cell gone awry. Even with contagious cancers (like the one killing the Tasmanian Devils) you're still ultimately dealing with an infectious eukaryotic cell of basically the same species type a…

The premise of this bioweapon is that it can target the specific DNA of the target person or subpopulation.

Anything which can do that can target the mutated genome of a cancer in a human.

> of basically the same species type as the organism

Which means you will not be able to target a single person or subpopulation, because they are all the same species type.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#250

Post by anonymouskimmer »

eesmith wrote: post #249
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there are already viable full-cure treatments for all those cancers then why aren't there viable full-cure treatments for this sort of bioweapon? Plenty of possibilities. A cancer is ultimately a mutated genome in a viable cell gone awry. Even with contagious cancers (like the one killing the Tasmanian Devils) you're still ultimately dealing with an infectious eukaryotic cell of basically the same species type a…

The premise of this bioweapon is that it can target the specific DNA of the target person or subpopulation. Anything which can do that can target the mutated genome of a cancer in a human. > of basically the same species type as the organism Which means you will not be able to target a single person or subpopulation, because they are all the same species type.

I don't disagree with what you're saying I'm just saying that the skunkworkers may not care about one method of treating their family members if other methods exist and work well.
Post reply on HN