4 ms·

At the risk of sounding overly cynical I'm going to sound overly cynical - I don't think that statement is worth the pixels it's activating. They are going to s

by plughs 7y ago

At the risk of sounding overly cynical I'm going to sound overly cynical - I don't think that statement is worth the pixels it's activating. They are going to say whatever they need to say to keep the money rolling in. It could be a lie, it could be something that changes tomorrow without notification. They don't care because why should they?

shawnz 7y ago
Why would they care about saying it and not care about doing it? Obviously they've identified that their customers value those protections, so if they were demonstrated to be lying about it or changed their policy in the future don't you expect that they'd risk losing the customers who made the choice to use 23andme based on their progressive law enforcement policy?
- tro7ghor4 7y ago
  > Why would they care about saying it and not care about doing it? Doesn't this argument imply that a company would never lie? > don't you expect that they'd risk losing the customers This is a calculated risk. First, they have to be exposed. Second, their excuses have to be denied. Third, their transgressions have to enter the public sphere. Fourth, the public at large has to be made aware. Fifth, the public has to care about it. Of course, those who have already uploaded their DNA are out of luck. Maybe the company loses some "potential" customers. But the risk is always worth it, because in the end, everything stops at number 2: National Security and Law Enforcement are a cover to allow the authorities to do basically anything with impunity. Going back to: > 23andMe chooses to use all practical legal and administrative resources to resist requests from law enforcement, and we do not share customer data with any public databases, or with entities that may increase the risk of law enforcement access. Note the word "practical". So if they disclose something, it was because it was "impractical" not to. Oh well.
- UweSchmidt 7y ago
  That's the market-based ethics enforcement. Usually this cause and effect link is too weak to be practical. Business incentives are short-term, leadership changes, companies get bought, business models change, and market transparency is low.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    True, prioritizing short-term gains creates incentives to lie. But they've stood by this progressive policy for quite some time now even though scrutiny of law enforcement access to DNA databases is higher than ever. So I'm not convinced they're lying. Believe me, if there is any sign that that's the case then I will be deleting my account as soon as possible.

by plughs 7y ago

shawnz 7y ago

Why would they care about saying it and not care about doing it? Obviously they've identified that their customers value those protections, so if they were demonstrated to be lying about it or changed their policy in the future don't you expect that they'd risk losing the customers who made the choice to use 23andme based on their progressive law enforcement policy?

tro7ghor4 7y ago
> Why would they care about saying it and not care about doing it? Doesn't this argument imply that a company would never lie? > don't you expect that they'd risk losing the customers This is a calculated risk. First, they have to be exposed. Second, their excuses have to be denied. Third, their transgressions have to enter the public sphere. Fourth, the public at large has to be made aware. Fifth, the public has to care about it. Of course, those who have already uploaded their DNA are out of luck. Maybe the company loses some "potential" customers. But the risk is always worth it, because in the end, everything stops at number 2: National Security and Law Enforcement are a cover to allow the authorities to do basically anything with impunity. Going back to: > 23andMe chooses to use all practical legal and administrative resources to resist requests from law enforcement, and we do not share customer data with any public databases, or with entities that may increase the risk of law enforcement access. Note the word "practical". So if they disclose something, it was because it was "impractical" not to. Oh well.
UweSchmidt 7y ago
That's the market-based ethics enforcement. Usually this cause and effect link is too weak to be practical. Business incentives are short-term, leadership changes, companies get bought, business models change, and market transparency is low.
- shawnz 7y ago
  True, prioritizing short-term gains creates incentives to lie. But they've stood by this progressive policy for quite some time now even though scrutiny of law enforcement access to DNA databases is higher than ever. So I'm not convinced they're lying. Believe me, if there is any sign that that's the case then I will be deleting my account as soon as possible.