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

23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 402 posts

Re: 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing

#291

Post by maxerickson »

pc86 wrote: post #38
basch wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deeper in it has the other one. I also set my future status to auto opt-out. “I opt out of the updated terms and will stick to the current in place ones indefinitely, including any future changes. I declare myself immune from having to do anything like this again in the future and set my status to auto-opt-out.”

Is this legally binding? I'm extremely skeptical any time phrases like "immune" and "automatically" start making their way into legalese as it's usually something like those Facebook "don't use my photos" things your aunt reposts every few months.

They have lawyers on staff, it doesn't matter if it is legally binding because they will ignore it and force you to spend thousands of dollars trying to enforce it (in the unlikely case it mattered).

Re: 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing

#292

Post by varispeed »

d2049 wrote: post #21

I would have presumed that security-minded people, which includes those who work in tech, would not so easily give away their genome, and that most of 23andMe's customers are a slice of the general population. But then I read about things like WorldCoin and that people who go to startup parties jump at the chance to give away scans of their retinas and I'm befuddled. Why would anyone willingly do that?

I know someone who is very security-minded, but also he was born to parents misplaced due to a war and they didn't know where they come from (their adoptive parents would only know a region, but not for sure). At the time it was an easy option to learn something about his heritage to him. His curiosity was satisfied.

Re: 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing

#293

Post by theGnuMe »

deathanatos wrote: post #269
theGnuMe wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but the hackers are not covered entities.

That's not how HIPAA works. 23andme would be, or would not be, the covered entity, and the entity bound by HIPAA.

I dunno, they offer blood tests ordered by a clinician. That probably creates a covered entity.. then the hackers get the phi data, they for sure do not have a business associates agreement with 23andme. May only matter for the blood draws.

Re: 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing

#294

Post by kelthan »

p_j_w wrote: post #246
d2049 wrote: post #21

I would have presumed that security-minded people, which includes those who work in tech, would not so easily give away their genome, and that most of 23andMe's customers are a slice of the general population. But then I read about things like WorldCoin and that people who go to startup parties jump at the chance to give away scans of their retinas and I'm befuddled. Why would anyone willingly do that?

>But then I read about things like WorldCoin and that people who go to startup parties jump at the chance to give away scans of their retinas and I'm befuddled. I'm befuddled that anyone thinks Sam Altman is the least bit trustworthy after WorldCoin.

There is a difference between genomic data and biometric data: biometric data has a known potential exploit vectors. So, with a picture of your retina, a sophisticated adversary could potentially reproduce your retina to allow access to some secure facility.

Genomic data doesn't have the same risk factors--at least at the moment. I think that the point many are trying to make here is that there may be risk vectors available at some point in the future that aren't known now. A couple of theoretical examples:

* You had to give a blood sample rather than other biometric data like a retina scan.

* Spoofing DNA evidence. That would be very/prohibitively expensive/difficult at the moment, but I suppose could become as easy as 3d printing at some point in the future.

Re: 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing

#295

Post by maxerickson »

imiric wrote: post #151
tfehring wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, health insurers can only price based on age, location, and tobacco use. Setting health insurance premiums or denying coverage based on any health-related factors has been illegal for over a decade, and changing that would be totally unviable politically. However, it's a significant risk for other types of insurance including life, disability, and long term care.

Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean health insurance companies don't find loopholes, and consider fines when they get caught as the cost of doing business. See this series of articles[1] for some of their criminal shenanigans. It's more than likely that they would use genetic data to deny insurance, and then settle the cases in court if they happen to get sued, which statistically is probably a rare occurrence. […

They are denying claims. If they are going to do that, why would they condition it on genetics (vs just denying anything they think they can)?

The paranoia about insurance and genetics is that they simply refuse to do business with high risk customers.

Re: 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing

#296

Post by underlipton »

everforward wrote: post #110
kelthan wrote: post #12

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…

They ought to be evaluated as if no TOS exists. Given the clear intent to defraud customers by misrepresenting the contract they were bound by, the claims should be evaluated under the TOS most favorable to the plaintiffs. The most favorable TOS is the one that's invalid because 23andMe didn't get anyone to actually agree, ergo the claims are evaluated as if no TOS exists. This is an attempt to undermine consumer pro…

There should a (modern version of a) letter-writing campaign to pressure the government to take this seriously. The literal core of one's being is on the line.

Re: 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing

#297

Post by TeaBrain »

alephnan wrote: post #133
verve wrote: post #7

To duck out of the new ToS, just write this email to legal@23andme.com-- To Whom It May Concern: My name is [name], and my 23andMe account is under the email [email]. I am writing to declare that I do not agree to the new terms of service at https://www.23andme.com/legal/terms-of-service/ .

I am logging to my 23andme account to confirm my info and name registered there. I forgot my password and did a password reset. They have password requirement of 12 characters minimum. A bunch of security theater just to get hacked anyways

The requirement wasn't previously that long. Also, following the hack, they're requiring everyone to reset their passwords.

Re: 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing

#298

Post by kelthan »

vik0 wrote: post #117
mrweasel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same people believed crypto-currency, infinite growth, social media and many other things. At least 23andMe provided actual value, to some at least. What I find strange is that 23andMe did not automatically delete data after 30 days, or at the very least took it offline, only to be available on request. Notify people that their results are available and inform them that the data will be available for 30 days afte…

What actual value did 23andMe and similar services offer in the first place? Quenching someone's curiosity about where their ancestors are from? Do we even know how accurate it is at doing that?

I was adopted. I have no idea who my biological parents were or what genetic risks I might have inherited from them. When the doctor asks "Has anyone in your family ever had ?" I have no answer to those questions without a genomic test.

Re: 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing

#299

Post by chihuahua »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #241
eweise wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in California, its illegal for anything to fall from a vehicle except water and bird feathers so not sure how that sign help them.

What about fallen leaves?

Straight to jail!
Post reply on HN