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

41–50 of 402 posts

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

#41

Post by throwaway092323 »

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 probably know that it doesn't hold water legally. The hope is to victim blame as much as possible so that fewer people sue them in the first place. The next step will be to "remind" people about the TOS that they totally agreed to.

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

#42

Post by smarkov »

xvector wrote: post #27
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 am a security engineer. When I signed up for 23andme, I assumed with certainty that it would be hacked and all data leaked at some point. I balanced that with the value of knowing potentially important health/genetic bio markers. In the end, I valued knowing these bio markers above the privacy of my genome. The former is actionable and I can use it to optimize my health and longevity; the latter is of vague value a…

Exactly my thoughts.

I'd be more upset if a combination of my name and email/phone number got leaked than if my DNA was made available public.

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

#44

Post by tuwtuwtuwtuw »

adocomplete wrote: post #2

Thanks for sharing. Will def opt out and roll into the class action suits already filed. Take security seriously people. Especially when dealing with super sensitive data.

Which super sensitive data was leaked? I have read contradicting things.

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

#45

Post by dev1ycan »

I don't feel bad for anyone who sent their dna to a private capitalistic company. It was always obvious this was gonna happen. Especially when these companies paid so much to politicians like Bernie Sanders to appear on their ads to seem "benign".

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

#46

Post by Maxion »

scottLobster wrote: post #15
aeurielesn wrote: post #5

I don't understand how this is even legal but it has been widespread adopted without a backlash.

The older I get, the more I learn that "legal" doesn't mean what's on the books, it means what some entity cares to enforce.

And because court cases are so expensive, what really matters is who has more money to spend on lawyers.

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

#47

Post by willcipriano »

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 wonder if they can use things like opt out data to find a way screen for genetic markers of "troublemakers" or similar.

DNA driven targeted advertising that finds only the most docile consumers.

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

#48

Post by tuwtuwtuwtuw »

smarkov wrote: post #42
xvector wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a security engineer. When I signed up for 23andme, I assumed with certainty that it would be hacked and all data leaked at some point. I balanced that with the value of knowing potentially important health/genetic bio markers. In the end, I valued knowing these bio markers above the privacy of my genome. The former is actionable and I can use it to optimize my health and longevity; the latter is of vague value a…

Exactly my thoughts. I'd be more upset if a combination of my name and email/phone number got leaked than if my DNA was made available public.

Why would you be upset if your name+phone combo was leaked? Mine is all over internet so wonder why you feel it would be bad.

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

#49

Post by helsinkiandrew »

Forcing customers to use arbitration hasn't always been in the companies interest - if only a fraction of the 7M effected customers started the arbitration process it could cost a lot more than a class action suit.

Didn't Uber drivers get a large payment from them in this way?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/uber-loses-appeal-b...

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

#50

Post by snovv_crash »

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.

Give them a 30 day notice that it is binding unless they object?
Post reply on HN