3 ms·

Well by that standard is not worth protecting your privacy at all, after all the probability of any of your data being used against you is extremely low. And it

Well by that standard is not worth protecting your privacy at all, after all the probability of any of your data being used against you is extremely low. And it's a difficult point to argue, because obviously it's true - but still, why take the risk? >>Why are you only focusing on one of the bullet points when the point is that probabilities are multiplicative? Because I'm saying that all of your points don't need to be true for something bad to happen to you. The probability of all your points happening is probably so close to zero it might as well be zero. But if you've given the state any information it can be used against you - like the point made in the video shows. So I think what I'm saying is that yes, your points are improbable, but not all of them have to happen for you to get screwed over.

School-Cotton 2y ago
> Well by that standard is not worth protecting your privacy at all, after all the probability of any of your data being used against you is extremely low. And it's a difficult point to argue, because obviously it's true Correct, this is exactly the point I'm making. To recap: the point is that it is not necessarily the case that someone who sends their DNA to 23&Me is ignorant of the risks or stupid; it's entirely possible that they objectively analyzed the risks and decided it's not serious enough to care. > but still, why take the risk? For the same reason I walk outside without wearing a helmet to prevent me from bricks that could randomly fall from building facades. Mitigating the risk is not worth it, to me, relative to the hassle of doing so.