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

51–60 of 252 posts

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#51

Post by RyanShook »

To: arbitrationoptout@23andme.com Subject: Request to Opt-Out of Updated TOS

23andMe Team,

I am contacting you regarding the recent changes to the 23andMe Terms of Service, dated November 30, 2023. My name is [your name as registered with 23andMe], and the email associated with my 23andMe account is [your 23andMe account email].

I hereby formally request to opt out of the newly updated Terms of Service. I do not consent to the terms as outlined in the recent update.

Thank you for processing my request promptly.

[Your Name]

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#53

Post by guiambros »

RyanShook wrote: post #51

To: arbitrationoptout@23andme.com Subject: Request to Opt-Out of Updated TOS 23andMe Team, I am contacting you regarding the recent changes to the 23andMe Terms of Service, dated November 30, 2023. My name is [your name as registered with 23andMe], and the email associated with my 23andMe account is [your 23andMe account email]. I hereby formally request to opt out of the newly updated Terms of Service. I do not cons…

Where did you get the arbitrationoptout@23andme from? The email I get says to "please notify us", and the link is a mail-to legal@23andme.com.

That's the email I used yesterday to say I do not agree with the new terms.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#54

Post by consumer451 »

jacquesm wrote: post #44
anon35 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 2021 New Yorker article: How Your Family Tree Could Catch a Killer ( https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/22/how-your-famil... ) was incredibly illuminating and changed my perspective on our sense of privacy. With a surprisingly small fraction of the world's population sequenced, we can still match a sample to a person whose sequence we don't have . To quote the article: "Genetic genealogy, it turned out,…

That took them until 2021? I wrote this in 2012: https://jacquesmattheij.com/your-genetic-information-is-not-...

> Before you submit your data for genetic testing please realize that you are giving away a portion of the ultimate family heirlooms, the genes that run in your family and that this decision could easily come back to bite others.

I wish my mom had read this. She would have understood the implications, and not done it.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#56

Post by flir »

Rodeoclash wrote: post #47
consumer451 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like a "think of the children" type of appeal. I personally don't have any murderous history to hide. But there are unintended consequences with all of these losses of privacy. As a peer comment has rightly pointed out, nation state adversaries now have these same profiles. Maybe they can find a common DNA profile for an efficient bio-weapon. Oops. I escaped an authoritarian regime as a child, thanks to th…

> I personally don't have any murderous history to hide I've been meaning to ask, could you please remove the curtains to your bedroom so I can see in? I know you're not doing anything wrong so you've got nothing to hide.

Do you want a law that says people can't publish their own DNA SNPs?

Sounds like a free speech issue.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#57

Post by jacquesm »

consumer451 wrote: post #54
jacquesm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That took them until 2021? I wrote this in 2012: https://jacquesmattheij.com/your-genetic-information-is-not-...

> Before you submit your data for genetic testing please realize that you are giving away a portion of the ultimate family heirlooms, the genes that run in your family and that this decision could easily come back to bite others. I wish my mom had read this. She would have understood the implications, and not done it.

I actually wrote it for my mom...

It's very annoying how these companies sucker people in to do things they might come to regret later, there is absolutely zero transparency here. Besides the potential for massive privacy violation there is also always the specter of future uses against your interests.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#59

Post by consumer451 »

jacquesm wrote: post #45
jimbob45 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they can find a common DNA profile for an efficient bio-weapon. Oops. I think we already reached the end of the bioweapon tech tree with Sarin gas.

No, you are misreading the GP. What they mean is a bioweapon specifically tailored to match a particular DNA profile. Think Germany, 1939, or South Africa, 1985, but with this capability to see what the possibilities are and how utterly unstoppable that would be. And probably there are contemporary examples as well, but I don't feel like starting a flame-fest.

It could be specific to a family, or with this broad a DNA + meta data dataset, it could be enough data to wipe out much of an entire group. Choose the common traits in people who self-identified as a group. English, Jews, Slavs, Native South Americans, non-Han, etc.

The problem with bio-weapons has always been "blow back." Narrowing the scope of the weapon would help a lot with that.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#60

Post by Libcat99 »

jacquesm wrote: post #45
jimbob45 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they can find a common DNA profile for an efficient bio-weapon. Oops. I think we already reached the end of the bioweapon tech tree with Sarin gas.

No, you are misreading the GP. What they mean is a bioweapon specifically tailored to match a particular DNA profile. Think Germany, 1939, or South Africa, 1985, but with this capability to see what the possibilities are and how utterly unstoppable that would be. And probably there are contemporary examples as well, but I don't feel like starting a flame-fest.

I think the important takeaway is such a weapon could potentially target a DNA profile while ignoring others.
Post reply on HN