this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
440 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

69421 readers
3414 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
440
Drugmakers Are Set to Pay 23andMe Millions to Access Consumer DNA (www.bloomberg.com)
submitted 2 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Drugmakers Are Set to Pay 23andMe Millions to Access Consumer DNA::GSK will pay the DNA testing company $20 million for non-exclusive access to genetic data.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

How would you feel about your children being unable to get insurance coverage because a close relative used the service and the insurance company decided they were at too high risk for expensive medical problems due to similarity of genes?

To be clear, this is a made-up scenario that would be illegal under current US law.

[–] macgyveringIt 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Companies break laws all the time. The punishment is frequently small compared to profits from the crime.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago

Vague nihilism doesn't dispute what I said

[–] stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The law here is inconsequential. The only protection that is certain is for the data not to exist.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The law here is inconsequential

It's very much not.

[–] optissima@possumpat.io 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes. The issue you pointed to is being investigated after all. And there are potential damages if they are found to be violating the law.

[–] optissima@possumpat.io -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Did it potentially being illegal actually stop it from happening?

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It does stop other things from happening. So how do you square that circle? Or hopefully you can see that your simplistic thinking isn't terribly useful?

[–] optissima@possumpat.io -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

It does stop other things from happening

Source please!

[–] Stumblinbear@pawb.social 2 points 2 years ago

"Prove a negative, please!"

Fuck outta here

[–] Welt@lazysoci.al 1 points 2 years ago

You're asking them to explain why the rule of law discourages behaviours deemed to be against the law. You should be able to find evidence for that yourself, it's an elementary tenet of any judicial system.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago

You want me to provide a list of laws that insurance companies are not currently violating?

How about the one that you say they will violate? They've been not violating that for years since it was passed.