351–360 of 402 posts
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?
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.
If I'm not mistaken, that's the point the person above you was making. Those stickers on dump trucks that say "Stay back 200 feet. Not responsible for broken windshields" are worthless from a legal perspective. They do absolutely nothing to remove liability from the truck driver/company. If a rock falls from their truck and cracks your windshield, they absolutely are responsible for any damages. Rather, their sole va…
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…
Would like a laywer to correct me if wrong, but these terms would only apply to any future events, not to the hacks that happened under the previous terms, for which they've already accrued the right to sue in a court (or whatever those terms said) regarding that hack, and 23andMe hasn't really implied otherwise just by updating its terms?
If they wanted that, they'd have to have explicitly included language like "by continuing to use our services after this notice, you covenant not to sue in court for any prior causes of action" or the like?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's gravel they are transporting it's obviously their fault, it's the responsibility of the driver to secure the load (with some blame falling on truck companies for providing insufficient equipment). 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 driv…
But are they “a punch in the face”-responsible? I lived in Boston for a while. Cracked windshields were extremely common. No one was ever upset at another person.
They're taking the unrealistic expectation of the truck driver's sign protecting them from doing something illegal and flipping it. In other words "If you coul just put up your own sign and get legal protection to break my windshield, then I could just as easily put up a sign giving me legal protection to break your nose."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly why - we have a largely dysfunctional federal government (and most state governments aren't much better). The biggest downside is the lawyers take a massive chunk of any award and the actual victims are often left with very little. Or, even worse, the victims get worthless coupons (like with many credit/PII breaches - the award will be 1-year of credit monitoring from the company that allowed the breac…
I thought our government was dysfunctional on purpose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot an important one: Your ancestors, descendants, siblings, and cousins share much of the same DNA but did not consent to its release. All of the above risks apply to them as well. I'd be most concerned about insurance companies using genetic family history to deny coverage.
I'm not too worried about it because it's never a 100% overlap. Even my brother and I share only ~50% DNA. It gets way sparser for more distant relatives. About insurance companies, they're legally forbidden to use such data.
This is completely false. Any two random humans have more than 99% overlap by virtue of being the same species. It's even higher for brothers. We also share around 90% DNA with cats, dogs and elephants.
https://www.amacad.org/publication/unequal-nature-geneticist...
> I'm not too worried about it because it's never a 100% overlap.
This doesn't make sense. If they were equal, you'd be the same person except for environmental differences. Many applications don't need equal DNAs. E.g.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=KT18KJouHWg
> About insurance companies, they're legally forbidden to use such data.
This is a very weak argument. There's a long history of companies doing illegal things, and even if it's illegal today it doesn't mean it'll be illegal tomorrow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> That's like saying there's no point in having 2FA or strong passwords, because the FSB, the FBI and Mossad can get in anyway. > 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 / pa…
Clearly a bad faith argument. someone with your passwords can do a lot more damage than someone with your DNA. I think DNA is probably sensitive on the level of someone knowing your name and DOB. Not convinced it's much more dangerous than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm familiar with security (I keep a copy of Applied Cryptography on my shelf for "fun reading") and tech, here's a copy of my whole genome: https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/hu80855C Note it's a full human genome, far more data than a 23&Me report. You can download the data yourself and try to find risk factors (at the time, the genetic counsellors were surprised to find that I had no credible genetic risk factors). Pl…
Why do you think people are entitled to have genome data on you? The morality is flipped. Privacy is recognized as a core, natural right. Others have to prove their onus for wanting your biological data. Trusting others is a moral and character weakness, because you have no guarantees as to how that data will be used. Or more specifically, what new ways to analyze and take advantage of that data will become. I think…