China’s gene giant harvests data from millions of women worldwide(reuters.com)
reuters.com
China’s gene giant harvests data from millions of women worldwide
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-china-bgi-dna/
173 comments
I see kind of a silver lining here, in that it has the potential to get US-based lawmakers to care about mass data-harvesting enough to make some laws about it. I imagine that privacy laws are easier to get through congress if the perceived threat is a foreign government rather than a home-grown tech giant
They'll just slap sanctions on that company / government to prevent gathering of the info from the US population. Also if such data offers verified massive advantage as they say the US might be more inclined to instead repeal / weaken privacy laws to keep up with China.
> BGI said in a statement it “has never been asked to provide – nor provided – data from its NIFTY tests to Chinese authorities for national security or national defense security purposes.”
...as if those two very specific use cases are the only possible "reasons" authorities can ever come up with when they want the data.
...as if those two very specific use cases are the only possible "reasons" authorities can ever come up with when they want the data.
I'm trying not to be inflammatory. China is a totalitarian regime, they have no check and balances keeping them from using all this power they've been amassing to accomplish any kind of goals they have. It's completely different from the US or any other democracy, which have these mechanisms in place to undermine themselves once they start to do evil stuff with their power, and I'm not saying that it's OK to democracies have this kind of power. There's no stop button for China and I wonder when will we (I'm not American) change our standing against this.
> It's completely different from the US
What a laughable notion. Utter the words "national security" and all your checks and balances go right out the window. There are also no checks and balances for non-US citizens: it is free to violate my non-existent rights as much as it wants.
What a laughable notion. Utter the words "national security" and all your checks and balances go right out the window. There are also no checks and balances for non-US citizens: it is free to violate my non-existent rights as much as it wants.
The notion that the US is free from corruption and severe abuse of power is laughable.
The notion that it’s no different from China is absurdist propaganda. In China there is no such thing as abuse of power if it is sanctioned by the party.
The notion that it’s no different from China is absurdist propaganda. In China there is no such thing as abuse of power if it is sanctioned by the party.
> The notion that it’s no different from China is absurdist propaganda.
I was responding to the notion that it is completely different from China. It is not. The western nations are more totalitarian than they would like to admit.
I was responding to the notion that it is completely different from China. It is not. The western nations are more totalitarian than they would like to admit.
It is completely different.
Western governments are not controlled by a single party with an lifetime ruler and no democratic mechanisms at all for expressing dissent, let alone moderating power.
It’s not a matter of degree. Doing bad stuff is not the same as totalitarianism.
Western governments are not controlled by a single party with an lifetime ruler and no democratic mechanisms at all for expressing dissent, let alone moderating power.
It’s not a matter of degree. Doing bad stuff is not the same as totalitarianism.
> What a laughable notion. Utter the words "national security" and all your checks and balances go right out the window.
What kind of false equivalency bullshit is this? In China, you utter the words "national security" and newspapers get shut down by the police: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-beijing-shu.... Publish the wrong kind of books and they'll kidnap you and put you in prison (even if you have a foreign citizenship, which you'll conveniently "voluntarily renounce" in custody): https://www.npr.org/2020/02/25/809163417/hong-kong-bookselle....
What kind of false equivalency bullshit is this? In China, you utter the words "national security" and newspapers get shut down by the police: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-beijing-shu.... Publish the wrong kind of books and they'll kidnap you and put you in prison (even if you have a foreign citizenship, which you'll conveniently "voluntarily renounce" in custody): https://www.npr.org/2020/02/25/809163417/hong-kong-bookselle....
Can you name one person who has said the US is free from corruption or abuse of power? I don't think I have ever seen anybody on HN or anywhere else state otherwise. Nobody is saying the US or any country is perfect. All we are saying is the US and the West are better, by a large margin, than China. Trying to say they are comparable is what is actually laughable.
People like OP actually scares me, the fact they cannot understand that is "exactly the same" makes me think chauvinism has taken over the rational part of the brain and anything, no matter how horrible, could be justified if done by "the right people".
i_haz_rabies(6)
Neither are perfect, so both are the same? Sorry, but that's just not the reality. For starters, one can say "F Trump" or "F Biden" without getting disappeared. There -are- systems to hold the powers-at-be accountable. The way issues are handled in these countries are completely different.
I'm tired of this whatboutism used to excuse completely appalling behavior with -zero- checks and balances at all. Country A doing bad thing doesn't excuse Country B from doing a much worse thing.
I'm tired of this whatboutism used to excuse completely appalling behavior with -zero- checks and balances at all. Country A doing bad thing doesn't excuse Country B from doing a much worse thing.
Sr_developer(1)
> Utter the words "national security"
And probably soon "public health"
And probably soon "public health"
NSA at it again with the psy-ops
Sure, I clearly remember how Bush Jr. along Cheney, Powel and Rumsfeld went to court and were imprisoned for life for all the misery they inflicted. Oh, wait...
We also didn't put FDR in prison for the misery he caused the Germans or Japanese. I don't recall FDR asking their permission to invade or bomb them. And we didn't put Truman into prison for the misery he caused the Koreans. FDR's actions killed more innocent civilians than the Iraq War did. That's not whataboutism or misdirection, I plainly dislike Bush & Co., they're all monsters. The US should not have invaded Iraq, it wasn't in the US self-interest to do so, it was a wildly irrational choice. And yet the context is a lot more complex than you're suggesting.
Saddam is gone. Iraq is a fledgling democracy, which was unthinkable 25 years ago, and their oil output is persistently near record highs.
Iraq has a GDP per capita higher than Indonesia, the Philippines, Jordan, Egypt. And not far from South Africa or Paraguay. It's not a total disaster at present, they legitimately have a chance to build something there in the coming decades.
These two things are simultaneously true: Iraq's future prospects are better because the US invaded, and the US should not have invaded.
The Korean War involved dramatically more misery than Iraq did. Millions of people died in just a few years. Ask the South Koreans if they would prefer that the Kim family were ruling over them while they exist in absolute poverty today.
Isn't it just fascinating how today nobody dares to proclaim that the US should have left North Korea to conquer and rule South Korea, that that would have been the obvious better outcome vs the misery they went through for decades after the war. No, people wouldn't dare to say that, but they'll say it about Iraq, because it's a convenient stick to beat the US with. If Iraq's fortunes improve in the coming decades, those same people will go largely silent on the matter and the narrative will be modified (go back and read how the narrative on the Korean War changed across the decades as South Korea's situation radically improved).
The people of Iraq have a chance to chart their own course democratically. The US doesn't rule Iraq, we didn't take their oil, we didn't annex their territory. We lost two trillion dollars and thousands of soldiers trying to stop them from killing eachother in a religious war. The situation in Iraq is very far from perfect, so what, the lack of perfection isn't a valid counter argument; the situation in South Korea after the Korean War was very very far from perfect for decades.
Even the US was a basketcase for decades after its founding. It was held together by a string, ultimately culminating in a very bloody civil war as well.
It took decades for South Korea to build up the structures necessary to sustain itself as a democracy and lift the standard of living of its people. They were still poor as recently as the early 1980s. Why is it that people think Iraq should have been instantly transformed into a mecca? That's a level of expectation nobody would dare apply to any other similar context. As though the end of Saddam's rule was somehow going to be soft and fluffy, rather than involving misery. There was no other scenario than to go through misery given the sectarian split in Iraq and the way Iraq was being ruled, it was always going to prompt a civil war.
The issue is that the US was involved. It's an easy point that can be used to hit the US with.
How can I be sure of that? Well, simple, consider the alternative. The opposite position is: condemn the people of Iraq to living under Saddam and his sadistic family (or the equivalent). I'll note that was a minority political group oppressing and torturing a far larger majority group through a brutal totalitarian system with zero human rights. Condemn the Iraqi people to go back to that? I'd challenge someone to dare to say that right now and then back it up as the better alternative to the present (that's not what would happen of course; a person will instead proclaim a fantasy scenario of fluffy bunnies and utopia where glorious happiness and peace would shine from the sky magically and all the conflicting groups in Iraq would hold a love-in and Saddam would have just willingly retired as dictator-for-life and then there would have been no civil war in the aftermath and instead it would have been an organic gentle process).
I'd like to see someone stand up and proclaim it would have been better if the US hadn't rescued South Korea from being enslaved by North Korea's Kim Dynasty. Because that's exactly what people so often openly proclaim about the Iraq situation, including its majority Shia and minority Kurds who were brutalized by Saddam.
The US shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq, it should have never invaded Iraq. However the prospects for the people of Iraq are not worse today than they were under Saddam's reign of terror. And it's entirely an intellectual con that Iraq was supposedly stable under Saddam (one of the few arguments frequently thrown out in support of the Saddam scenario). Iraq was extraordinarily unstable under Saddam, which is why he had to constantly murder and purge people. When you have actual stability you don't have to slaughter and torture people; Saddam had to do that constantly to prevent his system from collapsing due to its inherent instability.
Saddam is gone. Iraq is a fledgling democracy, which was unthinkable 25 years ago, and their oil output is persistently near record highs.
Iraq has a GDP per capita higher than Indonesia, the Philippines, Jordan, Egypt. And not far from South Africa or Paraguay. It's not a total disaster at present, they legitimately have a chance to build something there in the coming decades.
These two things are simultaneously true: Iraq's future prospects are better because the US invaded, and the US should not have invaded.
The Korean War involved dramatically more misery than Iraq did. Millions of people died in just a few years. Ask the South Koreans if they would prefer that the Kim family were ruling over them while they exist in absolute poverty today.
Isn't it just fascinating how today nobody dares to proclaim that the US should have left North Korea to conquer and rule South Korea, that that would have been the obvious better outcome vs the misery they went through for decades after the war. No, people wouldn't dare to say that, but they'll say it about Iraq, because it's a convenient stick to beat the US with. If Iraq's fortunes improve in the coming decades, those same people will go largely silent on the matter and the narrative will be modified (go back and read how the narrative on the Korean War changed across the decades as South Korea's situation radically improved).
The people of Iraq have a chance to chart their own course democratically. The US doesn't rule Iraq, we didn't take their oil, we didn't annex their territory. We lost two trillion dollars and thousands of soldiers trying to stop them from killing eachother in a religious war. The situation in Iraq is very far from perfect, so what, the lack of perfection isn't a valid counter argument; the situation in South Korea after the Korean War was very very far from perfect for decades.
Even the US was a basketcase for decades after its founding. It was held together by a string, ultimately culminating in a very bloody civil war as well.
It took decades for South Korea to build up the structures necessary to sustain itself as a democracy and lift the standard of living of its people. They were still poor as recently as the early 1980s. Why is it that people think Iraq should have been instantly transformed into a mecca? That's a level of expectation nobody would dare apply to any other similar context. As though the end of Saddam's rule was somehow going to be soft and fluffy, rather than involving misery. There was no other scenario than to go through misery given the sectarian split in Iraq and the way Iraq was being ruled, it was always going to prompt a civil war.
The issue is that the US was involved. It's an easy point that can be used to hit the US with.
How can I be sure of that? Well, simple, consider the alternative. The opposite position is: condemn the people of Iraq to living under Saddam and his sadistic family (or the equivalent). I'll note that was a minority political group oppressing and torturing a far larger majority group through a brutal totalitarian system with zero human rights. Condemn the Iraqi people to go back to that? I'd challenge someone to dare to say that right now and then back it up as the better alternative to the present (that's not what would happen of course; a person will instead proclaim a fantasy scenario of fluffy bunnies and utopia where glorious happiness and peace would shine from the sky magically and all the conflicting groups in Iraq would hold a love-in and Saddam would have just willingly retired as dictator-for-life and then there would have been no civil war in the aftermath and instead it would have been an organic gentle process).
I'd like to see someone stand up and proclaim it would have been better if the US hadn't rescued South Korea from being enslaved by North Korea's Kim Dynasty. Because that's exactly what people so often openly proclaim about the Iraq situation, including its majority Shia and minority Kurds who were brutalized by Saddam.
The US shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq, it should have never invaded Iraq. However the prospects for the people of Iraq are not worse today than they were under Saddam's reign of terror. And it's entirely an intellectual con that Iraq was supposedly stable under Saddam (one of the few arguments frequently thrown out in support of the Saddam scenario). Iraq was extraordinarily unstable under Saddam, which is why he had to constantly murder and purge people. When you have actual stability you don't have to slaughter and torture people; Saddam had to do that constantly to prevent his system from collapsing due to its inherent instability.
Why did we owe the Iraqis thousands of our soldiers lives and a couple trillion dollars? You morally justified all this by concluding we improved the situation of Iraqis? What currency is their oil sold in? What companies discover and drill for it? I bet most are subsidiaries of Western corps. I did a google, looks like it's Exxon and Schlumberger International getting 96 new wells as of June 2021 (https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exxonmobil-basrah-oil-ink-de...)
"Condemn the Iraqi people to go back to that?" I condemn them to figure out their own future, do what's necessary and proper to attain it - whether it be suffer under Saddam or overthrow him is for the Iraqi people to decide. Not American politicians and intelligence services you seem to be a sycophant for.
"I'd like to see someone stand up and proclaim it would have been better..." False choice, get better at your moral justifications. Going to address the way the US public was lied into the Iraq Pillaging? You compare the Pillaging of Iraq with the Korean War - one had an aggressor (KPA crossed the line a thing that actually happened to instigate the war) and we had obligations to the First Republic of Korea. The US had and has no obligations to the Iraqi people, we just lied about Iraq and Saddam's relation to terrorists so the American ruling class could do it's thing.
I can't get passed this post boiling down to "we shouldn't have gone, but we did and Iraq is better for it" You completely fail to address the opportunity costs involved from the US side. Who are you trying to convince with this moral justification for invading Iraq, yourself?
I'll chop a hand off if Iraq becomes anything like South Korea before 2100.
"Condemn the Iraqi people to go back to that?" I condemn them to figure out their own future, do what's necessary and proper to attain it - whether it be suffer under Saddam or overthrow him is for the Iraqi people to decide. Not American politicians and intelligence services you seem to be a sycophant for.
"I'd like to see someone stand up and proclaim it would have been better..." False choice, get better at your moral justifications. Going to address the way the US public was lied into the Iraq Pillaging? You compare the Pillaging of Iraq with the Korean War - one had an aggressor (KPA crossed the line a thing that actually happened to instigate the war) and we had obligations to the First Republic of Korea. The US had and has no obligations to the Iraqi people, we just lied about Iraq and Saddam's relation to terrorists so the American ruling class could do it's thing.
I can't get passed this post boiling down to "we shouldn't have gone, but we did and Iraq is better for it" You completely fail to address the opportunity costs involved from the US side. Who are you trying to convince with this moral justification for invading Iraq, yourself?
I'll chop a hand off if Iraq becomes anything like South Korea before 2100.
The problem with the theme that the US went in to 'save' countries under a repressive state is that it's simply untrue. Why would the US just go in to save people? Given its war crimes exposed by Assange and its crimes against its own people by Snowden, it's clear the US doesn't operate with angelic purposes. There is always an economic and idealogical benefit to the US when the US invades or goes to war. Whether that's to benefit senator's private war industry, or to install a US-friendly puppet, history shows us it's definitely not due to pure altruism.
Yeah, especially on HN there's lots of whataboutism. As you can see from other responses you got, a lot of people get really defensive for China and are very eager to carry water for them - for apparently no reason. For them, the US has to be the worst offender, and if some other nation does equal or worse - they need to jump in as keyboard commandos to go to bat to make sure it's clear the US is public enemy #1. It was kind of true in 2003, of course, but the world has changed so much and their talking points haven't.
> Yeah, especially on HN there's lots of whataboutism. As you can see from other responses you got, a lot of people get really defensive for China and are very eager to carry water for them - for apparently no reason.
I was arguing with someone about a fringe website the other day, and I think I finally understand the thought process a lot of these people have. I think many are people who are strongly and habitually opposed to something (in this case, US injustices) have that opposition warp their perception of other things (especially things "opposed" to the US). Sometimes that means they see discussion of other injustices carried out by US adversaries as a distraction to be fought. Other times, that means denying and defending against accusations of injustice against a US opponent. In extreme cases, it means starting to explicitly support those opponents, even through they're arguably worse on almost every value axis these people started with.
tl;dr: anti-imperialists who oppose the US imperialism can sometimes become defenders of imperialism done by US adversaries.
This is article that helped me realize this:
https://newpol.org/against-the-grayzone-slanders/:
> During the Vietnam War, opposition to the United States and support for national self-determination for the Vietnamese among young activists sometimes developed into support for the Vietnamese Communist Party and its leader. One often heard at the protest demonstrations, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is Going to Win.” While this drift from opposition to the U.S. government to support for the Vietnamese government was understandable as a gut reaction to the horrors of the U.S. war, it was also very problematic. Most people chanted this slogan naively, but some gradually became supporters of Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese Communist government, and of the Soviet Union that was backing it. Few in the movement pointed out that Ho and the Vietnamese Communists were Stalinists who had murdered their leftist competitors and strove to construct a Soviet-style state in Vietnam, which is eventually what happened.
I was arguing with someone about a fringe website the other day, and I think I finally understand the thought process a lot of these people have. I think many are people who are strongly and habitually opposed to something (in this case, US injustices) have that opposition warp their perception of other things (especially things "opposed" to the US). Sometimes that means they see discussion of other injustices carried out by US adversaries as a distraction to be fought. Other times, that means denying and defending against accusations of injustice against a US opponent. In extreme cases, it means starting to explicitly support those opponents, even through they're arguably worse on almost every value axis these people started with.
tl;dr: anti-imperialists who oppose the US imperialism can sometimes become defenders of imperialism done by US adversaries.
This is article that helped me realize this:
https://newpol.org/against-the-grayzone-slanders/:
> During the Vietnam War, opposition to the United States and support for national self-determination for the Vietnamese among young activists sometimes developed into support for the Vietnamese Communist Party and its leader. One often heard at the protest demonstrations, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is Going to Win.” While this drift from opposition to the U.S. government to support for the Vietnamese government was understandable as a gut reaction to the horrors of the U.S. war, it was also very problematic. Most people chanted this slogan naively, but some gradually became supporters of Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese Communist government, and of the Soviet Union that was backing it. Few in the movement pointed out that Ho and the Vietnamese Communists were Stalinists who had murdered their leftist competitors and strove to construct a Soviet-style state in Vietnam, which is eventually what happened.
Yeah, exactly. The viet cong and NVA we're utterly sadistic and depraved. Just reading about the ways they would torment and torture not just enemies - but poor civilians - scars one for life. Complete and utter callousness toward human life -- all while the leaders of the communist party's children were kept safe.
Should the US not have intervened to prop up RVN, disrupting millions of lives of young americans (and losing 50,000 of them), and killing hundreds of thousands (millions?) of others from carpet bombings, napalm, etc? No, and continuing escalation was criminal on the parts of Johnson, Nixon, and their henchmen.
But somehow people need to take that into somehow supporting and idolizing the exact horrific, militant, violent, racist traits they claim they are against. At the end of the day, they just don't like the US (or use opposition to the US as a virtual signal) - it has nothing to do with opposing unethical things.
Should the US not have intervened to prop up RVN, disrupting millions of lives of young americans (and losing 50,000 of them), and killing hundreds of thousands (millions?) of others from carpet bombings, napalm, etc? No, and continuing escalation was criminal on the parts of Johnson, Nixon, and their henchmen.
But somehow people need to take that into somehow supporting and idolizing the exact horrific, militant, violent, racist traits they claim they are against. At the end of the day, they just don't like the US (or use opposition to the US as a virtual signal) - it has nothing to do with opposing unethical things.
The Last Sword Maker
by Brian Nelson
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38642886-the-last-sword-...
by Brian Nelson
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38642886-the-last-sword-...
I'm surprised no one made conversation about the same with covid testing and potential DNA harvesting too.
I feel like we are heading towards the world where the USA, EU, and China each form separate, isolated economies. Each economy would try to produce everything by themselves and import as little as possible. The flow of information and research would get limited.
Part of the lore of a series called Ghost in the Shell is that to cross certain region borders around the world you need to swap your cybernetic body, or whatever has been cyberized, to the local variety model, otherwise you don't get access to the local internet (which makes life really hard). How fitting.
And Russia. Multipolar views are now becoming mainstream
Yeah, this is exactly how the rest of the world feels about US-based companies harvesting dna data for years...
US companies have been harvesting DNA data for years without permission? Link? Companies like 23andme have people paying them to research their DNA with permission.
In California there is opt out genetic testing for newborns right after birth. Unless you opt out you get free testing for genetic disease but the samples are stored indefinitely and monetized by the state
EDIT: I remembered wrong, parents are charged for the test and then the state monetizes their baby’s DNA anyway.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-biobank-dna-babies-w...
EDIT: I remembered wrong, parents are charged for the test and then the state monetizes their baby’s DNA anyway.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-biobank-dna-babies-w...
I don’t think most people understand what they are agreeing to with regards to data sharing or mining. Ethically, burying important aspects in a ToS or privacy policy that you know most people will never read seems pretty wrong, while it may be legal.
It's all the same scam - you send them your dna to do some fun test, like see what % of neanderthals genes you have or how much Scottish you are (which is btw a total scam because error margins on these tests are usually huge and thus results are pretty meaningless) and your dna ends up in their database forever, and they can data-mine and cross-analyze and sell it as they wish. Of course they have good lawyers and EULAs and it's all legally covered, but it's just as immoral.
I don't know about DNA specifically, but blood that is donated to blood banks that ends up not being needed is sometimes used for research.
There's probably something about this somewhere in the fine print on something they signed without reading, but most donors aren't aware of it.
There has been some controversy over that because there have been lucrative commercial drugs derived from research using such blood, and some feel that the donors should be given a cut of the profits.
There's probably something about this somewhere in the fine print on something they signed without reading, but most donors aren't aware of it.
There has been some controversy over that because there have been lucrative commercial drugs derived from research using such blood, and some feel that the donors should be given a cut of the profits.
The word donating seems to be key in those scenarios. I don’t expect to tell anyone how to use my old pair of pants after I donate them to goodwill.
Donations are made with a purpose in mind. If I donate to a charity that promised to buy mosquito nets with my money, I’d be dismayed if it turned out all the money was spent on hookers and blackjack. So yes, while you might not expect to tell anyone how to use your donation, I do. Most people do.
Unless they managed to sneak the hooker clause into the fine print and I missed it. In which case, well done, carry on.
Unless they managed to sneak the hooker clause into the fine print and I missed it. In which case, well done, carry on.
Futurama references never get old :)
i wonder how much information is gained about me if a close relative decides this is a good idea to do...
As others have stated, I do not think that people understand what they sign in the TOS of these companies.
In this case the data was actually collected and analyzed with consent (as stated in the article).
In this case the data was actually collected and analyzed with consent (as stated in the article).
China does something evil.
The U.S. does it too (without giving any evidence).
It's OK China doing it now.
The U.S. does it too (without giving any evidence).
It's OK China doing it now.
It is just to point the hypocrisies of the discussion tone in HN towards China when USA most times does just the same thing
As an example is Uighur camps in China. When USA is the country with most incarcerated in the world in absolute terms, even China with a fraction of the population! And mostly directed at black and poor communities
As an example is Uighur camps in China. When USA is the country with most incarcerated in the world in absolute terms, even China with a fraction of the population! And mostly directed at black and poor communities
A company based in a democratic country, which gets paid to harvest dna data is a completely different thing from the CCP which holds all the power over all of China and it's entities harvesting dna across the world, with no authorization.
The gene data is the mildest thing the US hoovers up. They've been known to target missiles with phone GPS, and they've gathered big chunks of the world's social graph.
And the U.S. military has been collecting DNA of its enlisted since the 1990's. I stalled them long enough to avoid that, but my FOIA made it all the way to Al Gore and tumbled back down in the form of several boxes of generic vaguely worded reports.
Find and replace China with US and reality still makes sense.
Then the US expects the rest of the world to follow their rule based order, where no one knows what the freaking rules are except rules for thee but for me(US).
Then the US expects the rest of the world to follow their rule based order, where no one knows what the freaking rules are except rules for thee but for me(US).
"No one knows the rules." What? The US legal system is incredibly strictly codified. It's literally the main draw for foreign investment. If you ask any investor on the planet what the largest difference between the US and China is for investments, it's regulatory risk.
This is one of the most wildly off base things I've seen people say with regard to US vs China.
This is one of the most wildly off base things I've seen people say with regard to US vs China.
Lots of startup business models have been based around breaking the rules and then asking for forgiveness. See Uber etc
What rules did Uber break? I was under the impression that the startup model was to do things there are no rules for yet, and grow fast enough that you get to influence them when they're made.
> What rules did Uber break?
Many and there's a long list.
Almost every city had strict rules about passenger transportation, Uber obviously knew this and ignore them all. That's another reason they raised $25.2B in funding over 30 rounds, to become so big even big cities became small compared to them and they could use the "See you in court" tactic, by that point yeah they lose many cases, so what? They are so big cities and governments were pressured to change the laws to suit Uber.
Nothing is black and white, before Uber the business wasn't exactly fair and clean but Uber applied the scumbag business tactic to a whole new level and it was amplified by the billions of dollars in funding.
Many and there's a long list.
Almost every city had strict rules about passenger transportation, Uber obviously knew this and ignore them all. That's another reason they raised $25.2B in funding over 30 rounds, to become so big even big cities became small compared to them and they could use the "See you in court" tactic, by that point yeah they lose many cases, so what? They are so big cities and governments were pressured to change the laws to suit Uber.
Nothing is black and white, before Uber the business wasn't exactly fair and clean but Uber applied the scumbag business tactic to a whole new level and it was amplified by the billions of dollars in funding.
Uber took advantage of a grey area in the rules. They knew passenger transport was regulated, but didn’t physically transport any passengers. They didn’t break the rules as much as they had a (then) untested interpretation.
Any citations on the laws they broke?
Edit: I'll take the down as a 'No' :P
Edit: I'll take the down as a 'No' :P
[deleted]
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=laws+uber+broke
"Uber’s business model is predicated on lawbreaking" [0]
"That Uber regularly broke laws to cement its frontrunner status is not a controversial statement, it’s a fact." [1]
[0] https://hbr.org/2017/06/uber-cant-be-fixed-its-time-for-regu...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/8xwxyv/uber-became-big-by-ig...
"Uber’s business model is predicated on lawbreaking" [0]
"That Uber regularly broke laws to cement its frontrunner status is not a controversial statement, it’s a fact." [1]
[0] https://hbr.org/2017/06/uber-cant-be-fixed-its-time-for-regu...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/8xwxyv/uber-became-big-by-ig...
"LMGT(FY)" is a disrespectful, counter-productive, and weaselly response. Please don't use it. If you make a claim, it's your responsibility to provide evidence (including links) to back it up, and anyone who has actually used Google extensively knows that (1) search results vary per user due to search bubbling and (2) search result quality (and precision) can vary wildly depending on the exact query used.
Normally I'd agree, but in this case, BobbyJo absolutely asked for it. It would have taken ten seconds to find a huge amount of material on Uber's law-breaking, and to pretend that one never even heard of such a thing and that Uber is totally law-abiding? Bullshit; it's like asking for citations that water is wet. BobbyJo even came back to snark about downvotes. BobbyJo chose to be a passive-aggressive dickhead, and deserved to get exactly the same back.
You'll note I did actually then provide some actual references.
In conclusion, BobbyJo deserved it and it was a right thing to do. Disrespectful? Yes, that's the point.
You'll note I did actually then provide some actual references.
In conclusion, BobbyJo deserved it and it was a right thing to do. Disrespectful? Yes, that's the point.
> In conclusion, BobbyJo deserved it and it was a right thing to do. Disrespectful? Yes, that's the point.
This is absolutely against HN guidelines, general common decency, and just pure logic. You do not get to decide who "deserves it" and who doesn't.
Even in cases where the information is easily found, there are polite ways to say that, and you appear to have intentionally chosen an impolite manner.
This is absolutely against HN guidelines, general common decency, and just pure logic. You do not get to decide who "deserves it" and who doesn't.
Even in cases where the information is easily found, there are polite ways to say that, and you appear to have intentionally chosen an impolite manner.
you appear to have intentionally chosen an impolite manner.
Yes, EXACTLY so. Choosing to be polite or not is part of expression. Active choice of politeness (or not) adds layers to meaning and communication. In this case, part of choosing to be impolite is expressing that BobbyJo didn't deserve politeness here. Conversely, sometimes being polite is itself brutally insulting. In this case, it would have been passive-aggressively treating BobbyJo like a child; far more insulting.
You do not get to decide who "deserves it" and who doesn't.
Of course I can make that decision. Just did. You might subscribe to a set of rules in which I don't get to make that decision; I clearly do not subscribe to that. I note that I certainly won't be telling you who you should and should not be polite to, though.
Yes, EXACTLY so. Choosing to be polite or not is part of expression. Active choice of politeness (or not) adds layers to meaning and communication. In this case, part of choosing to be impolite is expressing that BobbyJo didn't deserve politeness here. Conversely, sometimes being polite is itself brutally insulting. In this case, it would have been passive-aggressively treating BobbyJo like a child; far more insulting.
You do not get to decide who "deserves it" and who doesn't.
Of course I can make that decision. Just did. You might subscribe to a set of rules in which I don't get to make that decision; I clearly do not subscribe to that. I note that I certainly won't be telling you who you should and should not be polite to, though.
Asking for a citation is asking for bad manners? Normally, if you posit something, it's on you to back it up, or admit it's pure anecdote or impression. I don't see how asking for a piece of information that's claimed to exist somewhere in the world is disrespectful.
Also, I did look it up. None of the articles I saw specifically called out laws Uber was guilty of breaking as a corporate entity, instead they all reference grey area behavior and use words like 'skirting' or 'undermining.'
Also, I did look it up. None of the articles I saw specifically called out laws Uber was guilty of breaking as a corporate entity, instead they all reference grey area behavior and use words like 'skirting' or 'undermining.'
I looked over both of those linked posts as well as the the links provided by a Google search and still couldn't find a single statute that Uber was unambiguously violating.
Most American rules don't apply overseas.
Eg they can spy on foreigners all they like.
Eg they can spy on foreigners all they like.
Didn’t U.S pharma companies used to sell drugs overseas that is banned on U.S soil? I don’t know if that is still the case.
While collecting data like fingerprints etc is bad, collecting DNA is on whole another level. Imagine using it for immigration purposes for example. Or the govt makes you get a license to have kids (like marriage license today) based on DNA traits. These things might sound comical today, but the social score thing sounded comical too, until it became a reality
While collecting data like fingerprints etc is bad, collecting DNA is on whole another level. Imagine using it for immigration purposes for example. Or the govt makes you get a license to have kids (like marriage license today) based on DNA traits. These things might sound comical today, but the social score thing sounded comical too, until it became a reality
> Didn’t U.S pharma companies used to sell drugs overseas that is banned on U.S soil? I don’t know if that is still the case.
Well everything that's not approved by the FDA (yet), but already approved somewhere else would fall into this category.
That's hardly a black mark against those companies.
Well everything that's not approved by the FDA (yet), but already approved somewhere else would fall into this category.
That's hardly a black mark against those companies.
Genetic disease screening before marriage, and fetal deformity screening been mandatory in China for decades.
And they have a special rule that they’ll invade The Hague if US war criminals are ever tried there. All those presidents and generals and spooks are safe from justice.
You're talking about the The Hague Invasion Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hague_Invasion_Act
Just a note, the US doesn't need permission from the Netherlands to invade them, of course. However, as I understand it, usually the US president needs permission from Congress before deciding to invade another country. In this case, Congress has given permission in advance to invade the Netherlands if the ICC tries a US citizen.
Just a note, the US doesn't need permission from the Netherlands to invade them, of course. However, as I understand it, usually the US president needs permission from Congress before deciding to invade another country. In this case, Congress has given permission in advance to invade the Netherlands if the ICC tries a US citizen.
> However, as I understand it, usually the US president needs permission from Congress before deciding to invade another country.
Only for declaration of war. The US hasn't declared war on anyone in since WWII.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...
Only for declaration of war. The US hasn't declared war on anyone in since WWII.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...
'America's gene giant harvests data from millions of women worldwide' would be an interesting topic for discussion. As it is we know, as the Hong Kong protesters know, that the CCP runs every aspect of China's activities. So nothing of critical significance happens in China without the knowledge and say-so of the CCP. Clearly that's not analogous to the the situation in the US. Why do they want this data? What are they going to do with it? Maybe they just love collecting data. Is this exercise anymore significant than the similar operations carried out by other countries? And why?
> The technology could propel China to dominate global pharmaceuticals, and also potentially lead to genetically enhanced soldiers, or engineered pathogens to target the U.S. population or food supply, the advisors said.
Or genetically modified viruses that target specific populations. Forget the food supply.
Something like a Covid-19 with a bit more specificity and a little more lethality.
No wonder the military has their hands in this.
And in this context, this is interesting:
> and since 2015 it has restricted foreign researchers from accessing gene data on Chinese people
And this isn't a "tin foil hat" post or a conspiracy theory. It's food for thought.
Or genetically modified viruses that target specific populations. Forget the food supply.
Something like a Covid-19 with a bit more specificity and a little more lethality.
No wonder the military has their hands in this.
And in this context, this is interesting:
> and since 2015 it has restricted foreign researchers from accessing gene data on Chinese people
And this isn't a "tin foil hat" post or a conspiracy theory. It's food for thought.
>And this isn't a "tin foil hat" post or a conspiracy theory. It's food for thought.
You can say that too when you bring up some 9/11 truther "questions". Doesn't make it less of a conspiracy theory.
You can say that too when you bring up some 9/11 truther "questions". Doesn't make it less of a conspiracy theory.
[deleted]
nobody is going to mention the positive side of this? This is going to contribute to the gene data pool of Asians, which is relatively underrepresented compared to the West (due prevalent of DTC companies), and help a lot in mapping our roots.
Isn’t the point of the article that they’re collecting data from women in the West?
As such it’s probably less useful for any goal of expanding underrepresented DNA records for Asian women.
As such it’s probably less useful for any goal of expanding underrepresented DNA records for Asian women.
> help a lot in mapping our roots
Do people actually care about this?
Do people actually care about this?
China is a totalitarian country and like the current virus it is not subject to anything. Is a at least have a hearing. Hence cf the two is crazy.
[deleted]
> the company is a pivotal player in a genomics race between China and the United States
The entire reason for this article. Surely if one were to use a similar US-based service, NSA and US military access to the data couldn't be ruled out.
The entire reason for this article. Surely if one were to use a similar US-based service, NSA and US military access to the data couldn't be ruled out.
Health privacy laws in the US do prohibit that except for very specific cases.
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/court-orders-subpo...
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/court-orders-subpo...
>very specific cases
Sadly not true:
https://cdt.org/insights/law-enforcement-national-security-a...
>The HIPAA Privacy Rule provides a broad exception for national security purposes. Under the Rule, a covered entity may disclose any and all protected (identifiable) health information (PHI) for “lawful intelligence, counter-intelligence and national security purposes” (emphasis added). On its face, the Rule does not require a court order or any other enforceable or formal demand; disclosure may be completely voluntary and may be initiated by the covered entity even in the absence of a request from a government official
Sadly not true:
https://cdt.org/insights/law-enforcement-national-security-a...
>The HIPAA Privacy Rule provides a broad exception for national security purposes. Under the Rule, a covered entity may disclose any and all protected (identifiable) health information (PHI) for “lawful intelligence, counter-intelligence and national security purposes” (emphasis added). On its face, the Rule does not require a court order or any other enforceable or formal demand; disclosure may be completely voluntary and may be initiated by the covered entity even in the absence of a request from a government official
What's the end-goal of China though? Is it to engineer ethnic bioweapons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_bioweapon
Or to figure out the genes for intelligence, health etc. and to modify their population with them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_bioweapon
Or to figure out the genes for intelligence, health etc. and to modify their population with them?
Perhaps all of the above?
China, China, China. How about US-based companies such as 23andme? They have been doing the same thing starting from much much earlier.
23 and me does this explicitly and with permission.
This comment is a rather egregious example of how surreal the false equivalences drawn between these two countries can be.
This comment is a rather egregious example of how surreal the false equivalences drawn between these two countries can be.
> The women, who signed consent forms stating that their genetic data would be stored and used for research, said they did not realize their genetic information could end up in China.
How do people not see the bias?
23andme doesn't specify which countries can do research on their clients' data, and for one I don't mind whichever country it is since the data can't be linked to people's identities. The only way to link it is to collect the person's DNA, at which point there is no point in using the database.
How do people not see the bias?
23andme doesn't specify which countries can do research on their clients' data, and for one I don't mind whichever country it is since the data can't be linked to people's identities. The only way to link it is to collect the person's DNA, at which point there is no point in using the database.
> ...since the data can't be linked to people's identities.
Well, 23andMe does "know" the identity of each individual. They know their name, their relatives, a lot about their genetics, and if given consent, store actual dna (biobanking) so that in the future other tests can be run. That's a lot of sensitive information for one entity to own.
Can we assume that 23andMe is at least very competent with security and PII, that they've taken enough safeguards to prevent hackers from stealing the keys to the kingdom? ehh maybe. Can we assume that they won't simply bend over when acquired by another less scrupulous entity? Nope. Can we assume that a future authoritarian government won't simply commandeer data whenever it likes like the CCP already does with Chinese companies? Hell no.
More to the point, however, is that folks are limiting the discussion to information about "individuals". Everyone imagines the consequences of individuals being targeted using this data. But really, geopolitical concerns don't care about individuals (modulo a very small number of key people). They care about populations. So even if individual information is kept safe, there's still awful things a bad actor can do with genetic data from everyone even without identifying individuals. That's what the concern is here.
23andMe has the same ultimate risks as BGI. It's just that BGI has skipped a few steps and gone further along in the dystopian nightmare by virtue of the fact that they're a Chinese company and utterly at the service of the CCP.
Well, 23andMe does "know" the identity of each individual. They know their name, their relatives, a lot about their genetics, and if given consent, store actual dna (biobanking) so that in the future other tests can be run. That's a lot of sensitive information for one entity to own.
Can we assume that 23andMe is at least very competent with security and PII, that they've taken enough safeguards to prevent hackers from stealing the keys to the kingdom? ehh maybe. Can we assume that they won't simply bend over when acquired by another less scrupulous entity? Nope. Can we assume that a future authoritarian government won't simply commandeer data whenever it likes like the CCP already does with Chinese companies? Hell no.
More to the point, however, is that folks are limiting the discussion to information about "individuals". Everyone imagines the consequences of individuals being targeted using this data. But really, geopolitical concerns don't care about individuals (modulo a very small number of key people). They care about populations. So even if individual information is kept safe, there's still awful things a bad actor can do with genetic data from everyone even without identifying individuals. That's what the concern is here.
23andMe has the same ultimate risks as BGI. It's just that BGI has skipped a few steps and gone further along in the dystopian nightmare by virtue of the fact that they're a Chinese company and utterly at the service of the CCP.
When I wrote "since the data can't be linked to people's identities", I was talking about 23andme research partners. They don't get any PII, and I presume neither does BGI as there is no reason for them to have it, unless they offer tests directly to consumers.
[deleted]
The data can't be linked untill it is. With DNA, you can guess approximative physical appearance and some medical properties. Once your database is rich enough, you can build family tree.
[deleted]
> with permission.
Most people barely understand the impact of their choices, that includes realising that all their (DNA) data will be logged forever if they ever let it touch the US. It is not reasonable to take this stance when the US tech company playbook has been to as obtusely as possible gain "permission" to do whatever they want.
Most people barely understand the impact of their choices, that includes realising that all their (DNA) data will be logged forever if they ever let it touch the US. It is not reasonable to take this stance when the US tech company playbook has been to as obtusely as possible gain "permission" to do whatever they want.
do most people know about the usage of their DNA data in this form though? My guess would be no
permisson from whom and for what
23andme made the headline here many, many times, going all the way back to its early days. Would you rather we keep silent when Chinese companies do it?
US, US, US. How about CCP backed companies?
> Reuters found no evidence BGI violated patient privacy agreements or regulations. However, the privacy policy on the NIFTY test’s website says data collected can be shared when it is “directly relevant to national security or national defense security” in China.
> Beijing made clear in a 2019 regulation that genetic data can be a national security matter, and since 2015 it has restricted foreign researchers from accessing gene data on Chinese people. In contrast, the United States and Britain give foreign researchers access to genetic data, as part of open science policies.
This not the privacy debacle people are making it out to be, since names are not collected, this is far less of a privacy invasion than 23andMe since that data base can extrapolate and identify you without your consent based on your relatives.
This is much more of either (which depends on your perspective):
an open science and data access issue
or a national security issue
> Beijing made clear in a 2019 regulation that genetic data can be a national security matter, and since 2015 it has restricted foreign researchers from accessing gene data on Chinese people. In contrast, the United States and Britain give foreign researchers access to genetic data, as part of open science policies.
This not the privacy debacle people are making it out to be, since names are not collected, this is far less of a privacy invasion than 23andMe since that data base can extrapolate and identify you without your consent based on your relatives.
This is much more of either (which depends on your perspective):
an open science and data access issue
or a national security issue