There is no way to know what a buyer will want to do with the reams of genetic information it has collected. Customers, meanwhile, still have no way to change their underlying genetic data.
I don’t think it is reasonable to expect every individual to become a privacy / legal expert. I think people should have reasonable protections and assurances given to them without needing to study the details of everything they do on a case-by-case basis.
We have laws about what food can and cannot be sold - so that individuals don’t have to personally test and monitor every product for safety. Privacy & data could be done like that too.
I don’t agree with that at all, if you don’t or can’t understand the terms of a contract, you sign at your own peril, expecting the government to step in everytime a person decides to excercise their stupidity is authoritarian and leads to a bloated, innefficient system. This thinking just makes contracts meaningless, it just means you can claim ignorance everytime you sign into a contract you don’t like.
Regulating food is whole different game for a number of reasons, i dont think it’s a reasonable comparison.
“The fuck else were these people expecting” is also my visceral reaction whenever shit like that happens, but if I think about for a bit longer, I realize that it’s not much different than saying “The fuck else were you expecting” to a rape victim who went alone into a dark alley. Sure, people are stupid for engaging with this obvious scam, but the bad guy is still the scammer, not the victims.
While I do agree its a bit whack, I question if everything needs 100% safety to be legal?
If someone offers a dangerous thing and you sign a waiver, maybe motocross, if you get injured is it the owners fault? Why should an individual be free from onus?
New Zealand understands this, you can sign away a companies liability to yourself. For adventure tourism stuff mostly. It’s a good and fair way to do things I think.
No one has any right to complain, this possibility is clearly outlined in the t&c’s every person agreed to.
Shouldn’t have handed out your defining essence to a corporation.
I don’t think it is reasonable to expect every individual to become a privacy / legal expert. I think people should have reasonable protections and assurances given to them without needing to study the details of everything they do on a case-by-case basis.
We have laws about what food can and cannot be sold - so that individuals don’t have to personally test and monitor every product for safety. Privacy & data could be done like that too.
I don’t agree with that at all, if you don’t or can’t understand the terms of a contract, you sign at your own peril, expecting the government to step in everytime a person decides to excercise their stupidity is authoritarian and leads to a bloated, innefficient system. This thinking just makes contracts meaningless, it just means you can claim ignorance everytime you sign into a contract you don’t like.
Regulating food is whole different game for a number of reasons, i dont think it’s a reasonable comparison.
Ok, either you let this slide, or I personnally strangle every living lawyers.
What?
What, "what? "
What did you not understand? I think I was very clear, use your words.
What about those of us who are related to the people who took the test, and never consented to the t&c? They have our data, too.
Blame the person you are related to. Duh.
“The fuck else were these people expecting” is also my visceral reaction whenever shit like that happens, but if I think about for a bit longer, I realize that it’s not much different than saying “The fuck else were you expecting” to a rape victim who went alone into a dark alley. Sure, people are stupid for engaging with this obvious scam, but the bad guy is still the scammer, not the victims.
A rape victim didn’t sign a contract saying that would happen if they went dont that alley. That’s the difference.
There is no bad guy in this case, just an idiot and a company.
Kinda wacked out take. Onus shouldnt be on the individual
Who should be responsible for these people agreeing to a contract and then not wanting to honour the contracts terms?
If personal responsibilty is “a whacked out take” then I’ll take that.
While I do agree its a bit whack, I question if everything needs 100% safety to be legal?
If someone offers a dangerous thing and you sign a waiver, maybe motocross, if you get injured is it the owners fault? Why should an individual be free from onus?
New Zealand understands this, you can sign away a companies liability to yourself. For adventure tourism stuff mostly. It’s a good and fair way to do things I think.