Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
That’s speculation, not fact, and I also don’t agree that owning a thing necessarily means you can sell it in an unrestricted/unregulated manner (guns, tobacco, as well as other sensitive medical info can’t just be sold willy-nilly)— especially when the “it” is sensitive biometric data whose originators never agreed to share it. That’s the problem when you and the greedy corporations you’re defending assume implicit consent rather than to ask for it: it’s damaging to the public and invades these people’s medical privacy in the name of profit.
And whether 23andMe should be subject to HIPAA laws is debatable at best.
They DID agree to share it.
Should that have been an option? Probably not, but now you are talking about legislation with wider implications, not some half baked public trust to protect a small group of people.
There are other databases of genetic code out there you know. The FBI can potentially accuse you of a crime based on your cousin uploading info to a genealogy website.
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/crime/2023/02/06/police-are-using-genealogy-sites-to-solve-crime-heres-what-to-know/69826173007/
I saw in another comment.
That doesn’t negate the public interest in protecting such data, as I have said.
Besides, that clause may not hold up in court.
All the more reason for broader legislation than a half baked idea about buying just this one database.
They did agree to share it but their children didn't and a database this large is likely to have significant predictive effects on generations to come.