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

81–90 of 252 posts

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#81

Post by anileated »

bangoimby wrote: post #76
bruce511 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> duplicating legally owned copyrighted works for personal use (not distribution) were rights that were well established, but sprinkle in the right technology and suddenly it gets a pass

True in more than one way; owning copyright to your works and being able to refuse/get paid for commercial distribution was a right well established, but a sprinkle of right technology and suddenly they can charge people to copy your work on demand with minor modifications for your own commercial use (while you get nothing).

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#82

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

"... the owner of the social network cannot resell data to a third party)."

Not sure I understand. Social media operators do not sell data. They provide access to computer users, acting like a Trojan Horse. ("Our app is installed on millions of phones. Millions people use some individual's website to communicate with each other." Zuckerberg, Musk, etc.)

Perhaps "resell" refers to when social media companies buy data. What prohibits them from (re)selling it. Maybe the seller's terms would prohibit transfer to any third party.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#83

Post by xbar »

Obscurity4340 wrote: post #77

Is there an actually privacy-respectful genome service like this or is 23&me literally the only game in town(the world)?

There is not any privacy-respectful business that won't eventually be acquired by private equity and squeezed for every just-this-side-of-legal dollar they can get.

Don't give away your genetic information if you can avoid it.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#85

Post by barrysteve »

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 "…

The newness of the field has nothing to do with it. The internet and tech in general has benefitted from being outside the law and doing all the old illegal sales and marketing techniques, online.

We can get into the weeds on the detail of the law, and we'll find in the end it looks something like where we started with 'common' law.

Law doesn't need to satisfy the majority of people, most don't want or care about what the law says or does. The law needs to secure some core concepts of liberty, freedom and move on.

There's nothing new under the sun, it's a lot of work. Making small changes works better than thinking about an entirely new system.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#86

Post by m463 »

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…

by law in california you can opt-out of binding arbitration in any contract for a short time after signing it. (30? 60? days? i am not a lawyer)

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#88

Post by m463 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #82
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…

"... the owner of the social network cannot resell data to a third party)." Not sure I understand. Social media operators do not sell data. They provide access to computer users, acting like a Trojan Horse. ("Our app is installed on millions of phones. Millions people use some individual's website to communicate with each other." Zuckerberg, Musk, etc.) Perhaps "resell" refers to when social media companies buy data.…

they don't sell it, they share it.

for example, I don't believe using google analytics or using a facebook badge is selling data, but it is sharing it.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#89

Post by m463 »

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.

Maybe you CAN ask for deletion.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#90

Post by MisterBastahrd »

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…

Personally, I'd like for it to be illegal to force people into TOSes which add binding arbitration to access their accounts and data once they've already time and money into the system otherwise. I shouldn't be negatively impacted regarding my rights to data or damages just because you were careless with my data. Likewise, any explicit agreement to legal remedy should really be in its own independent section for users to approve.
Post reply on HN