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

71–80 of 252 posts

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#71

Post by jacquesm »

Diederich wrote: post #68
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-...

Hah, beautiful, well done. But yours isn't nearly so...catchy looking...as the New Yorker version.

Yes, I suck at the eye candy department. Function over form any day for me.

You should see my e-bike, it is quite literally covered in duct tape (it was meant temporary, but we all know how that goes).

Also:

https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/

Which is probably my best article.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#73

Post by rpmisms »

space_fountain wrote: post #48
rpmisms wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead of the richest companies setting the standard for what a TOS contains.... The richest companies would formally set the standard for what a TOS contains.

I think the problem I was most interested in solving is maybe only somewhat related to this. I was frustrated that no one actually ever looks at TOS and so there is very little real informed choice happening. With a small fixed number it would be easier for audits and understanding to happen

The problem is that 99% of people will never read the TOS, period. South Park said it best in "Human Cent-iPad"

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#74

Post by [deleted] »

consumer451 wrote: post #41
dudul wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "innocently" mean in this context?

Meaning that she was over 70, and just wanted to learn some ambiguously defined information about her family history. There were some unknowns as far as where her great-grandparents came from. Maybe "naively" would be a better term. We are all law abiding citizens, what do we have to hide, right? Well, she did not read the T&C as far as how this information would be shared, and did not consider the implications of ho…

[deleted]

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#76

Post by bangoimby »

bruce511 wrote: post #64
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 "…

I'm not sure, IANAL but I would say that much of what a EULA or ToS covers is not that novel, companies skate by on technicalities, and a nontrivial portion of a typical agreement may even already be invalid but lacks case law. If companies weren't worried this might be true they wouldn't need the severability clauses. For example, disassembling or repairing items you paid for or duplicating legally owned copyrighted works for personal use (not distribution) were rights that were well established, but sprinkle in the right technology (even if it has no purpose other than to interfere with these rights) and suddenly it gets a pass. It's not a novel situation, it's a loophole to opt out of established law.

You are right that we won't be happy with the new laws, as so far and with the examples I gave new laws have mostly removed consumer rights, not asserted them.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#78

Post by nicd »

space_fountain wrote: post #24
gen220 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult because digital ToS are so tightly tailored to your business, and digital businesses are so malleable and formless. If you went through the effort to standardize your ToS, it would only be "useful" to a tiny handful of businesses at specific points in their growth trajectory. Regulations like GDPR are a top-down approach to the privacy component of a Terms of Service (i.e. there are only so many variat…

Is that true? Often ToS seem to mostly consist of boilerplate that's copied from business to business

Imagine there were a set of a few common terms that businesses could select, each with an icon, a high-level explanation, and the detailed legal copy.

I think there is a common set of those that would probably cover 80% of needs.

The remaining 20% could be "extended", custom terms for this company.

Such a system seems like it would make things much easier for consumers to understand, and also save legal fees for most companies. Maybe a good standard for a TOS-generator company to design and promote?

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#79

Post by metadat »

catchnear4321 wrote: post #37

do note you can and should send a response that says “no.” then you get to keep the existing terms, which are likely slightly better. hence the hoop through which you must jump.

Submit your request here:

https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

The email that sent the ToS update message is a do-not-reply address.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#80

Post by blindriver »

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.

To make you feel better, it doesn't have to be your mother to identify you. If a cousin were to have done it, you would still be easily identifiable. Basically anyone in your blood line using any of the services would make you easily identifiable.
Post reply on HN