4 ms·
Do you have a reference documenting this requirement? I've not seen it reported, & when I last checked (long ago), 23andme seemed to allow a customer to decide
by gojomo 3y ago
Do you have a reference documenting this requirement?
I've not seen it reported, & when I last checked (long ago), 23andme seemed to allow a customer to decide whether their sample was retained beyond the current round of tests.
And, if it were a current requirement, wouldn't this Nebula offering be prohibited in California?
- dannyw 3y agohttps://www.23andme.com/en-int/about/biobanking/#:~:text=Unless%20we%20notify%20you%20otherwise,to%20re%2Danalyze%20your%20sample https://www.23andme.com/en-int/about/biobanking/#:~:text=Unl.... https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/17/me-asl-23-and-me-is-not-for-me/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/17/me-asl-23-and-me-is-not... It’s a California “lab quality” law.
- gojomo 3y agoThanks, but: neither of those links say it's a California requirement, nor that it's stored with PII, nor that it's necessarily/always kept for 10 years (your original claim). Instead, it's said to be kept for at most 10 years, & even that is in a paragraph describing what happens if a customer specifically chooses optional storage! Further, if you're referencing 23andme's own privacy/terms documents, those also repeatedly pledge that samples are irreversibly destroyed upon request. So while I can still believe your original claim might be true – California requires many dumb & anti-privacy things, sometimes in dishonest ways! – the links you've forwarded provide more grounds to doubt your claim than support it. If it's truly a state legal requirement that overrides a user's explicit discard request for a full 10 years, that should be easy to document with a clear and authoritative link, shouldn't it?