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

61–70 of 252 posts

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#61

Post by jacquesm »

Libcat99 wrote: post #60
jacquesm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, exactly. And that DNA profile could be more or less specific as well to the point where you can commit genocide. Think 'final solution', not 'James Bond'.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#62

Post by lostdog »

whatshisface wrote: post #52

There is no way the courts will uphold this scheme where you sign away your right to go to court through inaction.

You are completely wrong. The courts encourage this. Specifically, Republican appointees to the supreme court favor arbitration, because it is better for corporations.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#64

Post by bruce511 »

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…

While I understand that looseness of your "common law" phrase, it's precisely the newness of the field that leads us to the lack of historical precedence (ie "common law").

So I would argue that we don't need "common law", we need "actual law".

The problem is that "law" is a subject that is very, very specific. Don't want them yo sell "your data" - well then first you need to define what data is "yours" and what is "theirs". That might be harder than you think. (Do you own your docile security number? Or find the govt lend it to you? Are public records considered to be public data?)

Privacy is just one corner. What about finances - can a service cut you off? What if you never oaid for it? Can you delete posts? Can quotes from deleted posts still exist? Can advertisers target specific demographics?

The problem being that writing actual law gor this stuff is hard. Writing law that will satisfy even a majority of people is near impossible.

So I hear your call, but I suspect you won't be happy with the law when they make it.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#65

Post by tropdrop »

guiambros wrote: post #53
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.

The article points out that the mass-sent email used a different email address than that of the ToS. arbitrationoptout@23andme is the email in the ToS.

Jury is out whether this hyperlink mix-up was intentional...

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#66

Post by jacquesm »

consumer451 wrote: post #59
jacquesm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly, the better the control the bigger the chance that a weapon like this would be used.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#67

Post by jacquesm »

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #50
throwoutway wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now a nation state hacker can use the same database to identify U.S. citizen descendants (to what generation?). Good luck with "illegals" style espionage

Or you know just a normal hacker (see this incident when a DB identifying 1 million people with Ashkenazi jewish ancestry from 23andMe data was leaked: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/genetics-firm... )

They just had to have that data eh? Idiots. This is criminally irresponsible.

This makes me so angry it is hard to describe.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#68

Post by Diederich »

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-...

Hah, beautiful, well done.

But yours isn't nearly so...catchy looking...as the New Yorker version.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#69

Post by lsllc »

consumer451 wrote: post #2

My mother innocently used this service, and filled out the form identifying all relatives by name. The results she received were entirely unenlightening, 50% of my DNA is now in their sketchy database, and I have no way to opt-out of anything. I truly despise this organization.

Perhaps you can file a DMCA takedown with 23andMe for the illegal copying of your proprietary code (instigated by your mother!).

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#70

Post by jacquesm »

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.

I think you missed the general tone of the GP's comment and inferred something they did not intend to say.
Post reply on HN