8 ms·

Even if you 100% believe in your heart that Altman would never do anything negative with these scans that doesn't mean someone else won't if/when they get acces

Even if you 100% believe in your heart that Altman would never do anything negative with these scans that doesn't mean someone else won't if/when they get access to them. People may trusted 23andMe with their genetic data but now no one knows who will end up owning it and why the buyer believes buying the data is profitable. https://wydaily.com/latest/regional-national/2025/05/08/23andme-users-genetic-data-is-at-risk-state-ags-warn-heres-how-to-delete-your-data/ https://wydaily.com/latest/regional-national/2025/05/08/23an...

sssilver 1y ago
Every company is exactly one CEO away from doing anything none would ever expect.
- Squeeeez 1y ago
  Not only companies sadly.
- usrnm 1y ago
  Most companies are exactly 0 CEOs away from that
wing-_-nuts 1y ago
When talking about government surveillance, people often ask some version of 'well, if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of?'. My response is always, 'It's not that I don't trust our current government, I don't trust all future governments that come after this one'. I hope given the recent events of having some hired thugs rifle through government databases (including the OPM, which supposedly has very sensitive data from security clearance applications), that maybe letting people collect and store data on you should be avoided at all cost. The older I get, the more I understand the stereotype of the eccentric former techie who no longer wants anything to do with modern technology or society
- the_snooze 1y ago
  > 'well, if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of?' I like to go with the simpler "I hold lots of sensitive data for people who trust me: my family, my friends, my employer. One would have to be a sociopath to disclose other people's secrets without their consent."
  - blooalien 1y ago
    > "I hold lots of sensitive data for people who trust me: my family, my friends, my employer. One would have to be a sociopath to disclose other people's secrets without their consent." Oh, that's a good one. I'ma totally steal that...
- patrickmay 1y ago
  I see no reason to trust the current government, nor any of the previous ones in my lifetime.
  - napierzaza 1y ago
    [dead]
- theyinwhy 1y ago
  Why would people distrust governments more than companies? I never understood that part.
  - dmitrygr 1y ago
    Because the government has more power over you. Thus, they deserve more scrutiny and suspicion.
    - kurikuri 1y ago
      Except the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people, whereas the company’s motive is either those of the people who control the company or profit. Even then, if the government is weak than the ‘more power over you’ is simply false. Maybe the magnitude of the power is more for a government, but companies apply their power with much more frequency.
plastic3169 1y ago
It is insane to defend Sam Altman here, but it looks to me that World goes out of their way to not to link the biometric data to identity or even save it. Sure you need to trust the black box but if the company gets taken over there is no data to for the new evil owners to access.
qwertox 1y ago
Same happened with Komoot, a popular German outdoors app. They have millions of tracks and user profiles, it's also a bit of a social network. From one day to the next they sold to the Italian "developer company" Bending Spoons. That company acquired Brightcove a few months earlier and several other services like Evernote, Meetup, companies which have nothing to do with "outdooring". From one day to the next they got access to my 13.000 tracked km, 800 hours of data. My profile is set to private, but now I have to assume that all this data will be sold to advertisers. "Anonymized".
tim333 1y ago
It's kind of different in that with 23andMe they know your name and genetic data. With Worldcoin you don't give your name and they just get a photo of your eyes.
- wnevets 1y ago
  > they just get a photo of your eyes. this comes across as if you are attempting to downplay the importance of this biometric data which is weird considering Altman is paying to get access to just a photo of your eyes.
  - tim333 1y ago
    They are more paying to get you signed up to and using their payment system. The eye thing is not so different to most online banking wanting to see photo id and sometimes a selfie vid that matches to check who you are. Except they get less info - just the image, not your name, dob and id number which banks want.
- ipaddr 1y ago
  So anyone who can scan your eyes can get into your bank account is very different compared to 23andme where you can give fake information as a name, buy a test with cash and they collect limited data that isn't worth much to advertisers. The first opens up many risks and surveillance opportunities that are different from the second where pooling of dna can link you to physical crimes or paternity confirmation where dna is found. The first wants one data breach anywhere to last a lifetime and the second is a bigger media story because people believe what we can do with the dna 23andme collects is more than reality.
  - tim333 1y ago
    No, the system doesn't work like that. The eye scan is just to check you don't get multiple accounts. After that it's like a crypto wallet with access by private key.
- vizzah 1y ago
  no, there shouldn't be a photo, only a hash, which is useless by itself.
an0malous 1y ago
I don’t think it’s the same, the eye scan isn’t linked to any other PII so all they know is “this is an eye scan of a human being.” What kind of abuse could be done with that data? I don’t think they even store the scan, they store a hash of it. And on the other hand, I do wish there was a way to distinguish real humans from bots on the Internet. I think it’s only a matter of time until the web becomes useless thanks to AI. What’s a better solution?
amelius 1y ago
I would trust Apple, though.

sssilver 1y ago

Every company is exactly one CEO away from doing anything none would ever expect.

Squeeeez 1y ago
Not only companies sadly.
usrnm 1y ago
Most companies are exactly 0 CEOs away from that

wing-_-nuts 1y ago

When talking about government surveillance, people often ask some version of 'well, if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of?'. My response is always, 'It's not that I don't trust our current government, I don't trust all future governments that come after this one'. I hope given the recent events of having some hired thugs rifle through government databases (including the OPM, which supposedly has very sensitive data from security clearance applications), that maybe letting people collect and store data on you should be avoided at all cost. The older I get, the more I understand the stereotype of the eccentric former techie who no longer wants anything to do with modern technology or society

the_snooze 1y ago
> 'well, if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of?' I like to go with the simpler "I hold lots of sensitive data for people who trust me: my family, my friends, my employer. One would have to be a sociopath to disclose other people's secrets without their consent."
- blooalien 1y ago
  > "I hold lots of sensitive data for people who trust me: my family, my friends, my employer. One would have to be a sociopath to disclose other people's secrets without their consent." Oh, that's a good one. I'ma totally steal that...
patrickmay 1y ago
I see no reason to trust the current government, nor any of the previous ones in my lifetime.
- napierzaza 1y ago
  [dead]
theyinwhy 1y ago
Why would people distrust governments more than companies? I never understood that part.
- dmitrygr 1y ago
  Because the government has more power over you. Thus, they deserve more scrutiny and suspicion.
  - kurikuri 1y ago
    Except the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people, whereas the company’s motive is either those of the people who control the company or profit. Even then, if the government is weak than the ‘more power over you’ is simply false. Maybe the magnitude of the power is more for a government, but companies apply their power with much more frequency.

plastic3169 1y ago

It is insane to defend Sam Altman here, but it looks to me that World goes out of their way to not to link the biometric data to identity or even save it. Sure you need to trust the black box but if the company gets taken over there is no data to for the new evil owners to access.

qwertox 1y ago

Same happened with Komoot, a popular German outdoors app. They have millions of tracks and user profiles, it's also a bit of a social network. From one day to the next they sold to the Italian "developer company" Bending Spoons. That company acquired Brightcove a few months earlier and several other services like Evernote, Meetup, companies which have nothing to do with "outdooring". From one day to the next they got access to my 13.000 tracked km, 800 hours of data. My profile is set to private, but now I have to assume that all this data will be sold to advertisers. "Anonymized".

tim333 1y ago

It's kind of different in that with 23andMe they know your name and genetic data. With Worldcoin you don't give your name and they just get a photo of your eyes.

wnevets 1y ago
> they just get a photo of your eyes. this comes across as if you are attempting to downplay the importance of this biometric data which is weird considering Altman is paying to get access to just a photo of your eyes.
- tim333 1y ago
  They are more paying to get you signed up to and using their payment system. The eye thing is not so different to most online banking wanting to see photo id and sometimes a selfie vid that matches to check who you are. Except they get less info - just the image, not your name, dob and id number which banks want.
ipaddr 1y ago
So anyone who can scan your eyes can get into your bank account is very different compared to 23andme where you can give fake information as a name, buy a test with cash and they collect limited data that isn't worth much to advertisers. The first opens up many risks and surveillance opportunities that are different from the second where pooling of dna can link you to physical crimes or paternity confirmation where dna is found. The first wants one data breach anywhere to last a lifetime and the second is a bigger media story because people believe what we can do with the dna 23andme collects is more than reality.
- tim333 1y ago
  No, the system doesn't work like that. The eye scan is just to check you don't get multiple accounts. After that it's like a crypto wallet with access by private key.
vizzah 1y ago
no, there shouldn't be a photo, only a hash, which is useless by itself.

an0malous 1y ago

I don’t think it’s the same, the eye scan isn’t linked to any other PII so all they know is “this is an eye scan of a human being.” What kind of abuse could be done with that data? I don’t think they even store the scan, they store a hash of it. And on the other hand, I do wish there was a way to distinguish real humans from bots on the Internet. I think it’s only a matter of time until the web becomes useless thanks to AI. What’s a better solution?

amelius 1y ago

I would trust Apple, though.