71–80 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did you send them your DNA? It was pretty obvious from day 1 that sending some random startup on the internet my DNA was a bad move.
No, I don't think that that's obvious. At least in the US, there are already protections for genetic information (including but not limited to GINA [1]). In the long run, I think keeping your genetic information private will be untenable- the potential benefits will outweigh the drawbacks. Plus, anyone sufficiently motivated could get your DNA somehow, you shed your DNA everywhere you go, no getting around that. So w…
But these people need to get close to you. 23andme made it easy for someone who could have been on the other side of the globe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Same reason construction vehicles have "Stay back 200 feet: not responsible for broken windshields" written on the back.
Yep. A small tangent for anyone who has seen these: they’re very clearly not specifically enforceable. I got a window banged up by things falling off a truck with this signage, and the first thing they said when I called their “How Am I Driving” number the first thing they said was that they were not responsible citing this sign. Fortunately that sign was non binding. :)
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or the reality is, if someone wants your dna they will follow you around and grab a coffee cup.
Yes, yours specifically, but what if I want like 200.000 people so I can find one that has a DNA profile similar to mine, who could serve as a escape-goat or victim? Maybe I want to steal a kidney, or a child that could reasonably pass as my own?
There are already literally entire databases of millions of peoples DNA freely available for scientific research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or the reality is, if someone wants your dna they will follow you around and grab a coffee cup.
Yes, yours specifically, but what if I want like 200.000 people so I can find one that has a DNA profile similar to mine, who could serve as a escape-goat or victim? Maybe I want to steal a kidney, or a child that could reasonably pass as my own?
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…
I'd say it's more than suspect, what's the point of agreeing to a terms of service if they can change after you agree to them?