Ancestry free weekend

Skerries

ancestry.co.uk free until Monday

Mountjoy Mugger

ONLY €95* ORDER NOW

un5byh7sqpd2x0

Mountjoy Mugger wrote: »

ONLY €95* ORDER NOW

Don’t give random companies your DNA

GerardKeating

Hugo Handsome Register wrote: »

Don’t give random companies your DNA

Only really an issue for undiscovered serial killers

Mr.Crinklewood

GerardKeating wrote: »

Only really an issue for undiscovered serial killers

Only ones that make mistakes.

garrkell

If no one gives their DNA then they can't catch the serial killers.....

AndrewJRenko

GerardKeating wrote: »

Only really an issue for undiscovered serial killers

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Only ones that make mistakes.

It's a much bigger issue.


Wait till you find that you can't get health insurance or life insurance because your DNA showed up a possibility of a genetic condition.


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/don-t-buy-online-dna-ancestry-tests-you-are-the-real-product-1.3713619

un5byh7sqpd2x0

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a much bigger issue.


Wait till you find that you can't get health insurance or life insurance because your DNA showed up a possibility of a genetic condition.


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/don-t-buy-online-dna-ancestry-tests-you-are-the-real-product-1.3713619

Exactly

spurious

That's why you only give to the companies that do not pass it on, where the information remains your property, not theirs.
I'm not sure that is the case with ancestry.

I know for the plethora of new companies it is very much not the case.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

spurious wrote: »

That's why you only give to the companies that do not pass it on, where the information remains your property, not theirs.
I'm not sure that is the case with ancestry.

I know for the plethora of new companies it is very much not the case.

As a privately owned American company you can be sure as hell your data is going to be sold.

"We use your Personal Information to market new products and offers from us or our business partners. This includes advertising personalized to you based on your interests. We do not share your Genetic Information with third-party marketers, insurance companies or employers, and we will not use your Genetic Information for marketing or personalized advertising without getting your explicit consent."

https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/privacystatement

If what they said here wasn't true they would have been sued out of existence by now.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

"We use your Personal Information to market new products and offers from us or our business partners. This includes advertising personalized to you based on your interests. We do not share your Genetic Information with third-party marketers, insurance companies or employers, and we will not use your Genetic Information for marketing or personalized advertising without getting your explicit consent."

https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/privacystatement

If what they said here wasn't true they would have been sued out of existence by now.

And what happens when they sell the company?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And what happens when they sell the company?

Is the average person concerned about what would happen to their files if e.g. Dropbox went bust? Or their stored debit card details if e.g. Amazon went bust? No, because nothing will happen with it.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Is the average person concerned about what would happen to their files if e.g. Dropbox went bust? Or their stored debit card details if e.g. Amazon went bust? No, because nothing will happen with it.

Does the average person keep their defining genetic code on Dropbox or Amazon?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does the average person keep their defining genetic code on Dropbox or Amazon?

No, they keep their credit card details. Which is more important to the average person, paying more for life insurance because their genetic details were sold to a third party by Ancestry, or having no money at all to pay for life insurance because Amazon sold your credit card details to a third party which resulted in your money being stolen?

If you're not worried about your credit card details being stolen then you shouldn't worry about your DNA, makes no sense. Ancestry is a huge company with a market value of a few billion euro, they don't need do anything shady in order to be significantly profitable.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

No, they keep their credit card details. Which is more important to the average person, paying more for life insurance because their genetic details were sold to a third party by Ancestry, or having no money at all to pay for life insurance because Amazon sold your credit card details to a third party which resulted in your money being stolen?

If you're not worried about your credit card details being stolen then you shouldn't worry about your DNA, makes no sense. Ancestry is a huge company with a market value of a few billion euro, they don't need do anything shady in order to be significantly profitable.

When my credit card account was hacked a couple of years ago, the bank refunded the dodgy transactions and gave me a new credit card number.


Who's going to give you new DNA?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

When my credit card account was hacked a couple of years ago, the bank refunded the dodgy transactions and gave me a new credit card number.


Who's going to give you new DNA?

So your logic is that the average person would prefer to take the risk of all their money being stolen and possibly or possibly not getting it back over someone stealing their precious DNA?

Most people automatically backup their photos in Dropbox, Google Photos etc. Are these peoples lives going to be more affected if their raunchy photos are posted online without their permission or if their DNA is taken?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

So your logic is that the average person would prefer to take the risk of all their money being stolen and possibly or possibly not getting it back over someone stealing their precious DNA?

Most people automatically backup their photos in Dropbox, Google Photos etc. Are these peoples lives going to be more affected if their raunchy photos are posted online without their permission or if their DNA is taken?

It's not really an either/or choice. Comparisons to credit cards or raunchy photos are really irrelevant.


What matters is DNA, and the impacts of which certainly aren't generally understood by the man on the street, and probably aren't understood by many of the experts involved.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

If you're not worried about your credit card details being stolen then you shouldn't worry about your DNA, makes no sense. Ancestry is a huge company with a market value of a few billion euro, they don't need do anything shady in order to be significantly profitable.

So huge, profitable companies like Google and Facebook never do anything shady to make money?


Come on.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not really an either/or choice. Comparisons to credit cards or raunchy photos are really irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all though. Why should we be more comfortable about the possibility of having our lives severely affected by having either our money or privacy stolen compared to our DNA stolen?

What matters is DNA, and the impacts of which certainly aren't generally understood by the man on the street, and probably aren't understood by many of the experts involved

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So huge, profitable companies like Google and Facebook never do anything shady to make money?


Come on.

Sources?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not irrelevant at all though. Why should we be more comfortable about the possibility of having our lives severely affected by having either our money or privacy stolen compared to our DNA stolen?

Because most of us don't understand the impacts of having our DNA stolen.

Deleted User wrote: »

Sources?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/google-accused-by-rival-of-fundamental-gdpr-breaches-1.4203981


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Because most of us don't understand the impacts of having our DNA stolen.

And what is that impact? And in what way is it greater than having our money or photos stolen?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/google-accused-by-rival-of-fundamental-gdpr-breaches-1.4203981

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal

First link is just a rival trying to badmouth Google without any merit and second link was caused by data-scraping by GSR and Cambridge Analytica and Facebook did not benefit from the breach.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

And what is that impact? And in what way is it greater than having our money or photos stolen?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/6/17435166/myheritage-dna-breach-genetic-privacy-bioethics
https://www.businessinsider.com/privacy-security-risks-genetic-testing-23andme-ancestry-dna-2019-2?r=US&IR=T
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/video/home-dna-testing-is-your-privacy-at-risk-of-a-data-breach-1450470467980

Deleted User wrote: »

First link is just a rival trying to badmouth Google without any merit and second link was caused by data-scraping by GSR and Cambridge Analytica and Facebook did not benefit from the breach.

On the first one, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner seems to think that the complaint has enough merit to warrant investigation.


https://www.joe.ie/tech/privacy-probe-launched-google-irelands-data-protection-commission-670019


The Irish DPC is not known for being jumpy or trigger happy. It's pretty hard to get them to take any action.


On the second one, are you actually saying that Facebook got zero ad revenue from pages with Cambridge Analytica surveys?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/6/17435166/myheritage-dna-breach-genetic-privacy-bioethics
https://www.businessinsider.com/privacy-security-risks-genetic-testing-23andme-ancestry-dna-2019-2?r=US&IR=T
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/video/home-dna-testing-is-your-privacy-at-risk-of-a-data-breach-1450470467980

I see nothing in these links that explains why having your money/photos stolen is not as bad as your DNA being stolen. Hackers holding your DNA for ransom? They can't do this with your raunchy photos?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

On the first one, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner seems to think that the complaint has enough merit to warrant investigation.
https://www.joe.ie/tech/privacy-probe-launched-google-irelands-data-protection-commission-670019
The Irish DPC is not known for being jumpy or trigger happy. It's pretty hard to get them to take any action.


On the second one, are you actually saying that Facebook got zero ad revenue from pages with Cambridge Analytica surveys?

First one, innocent until proven guilty. The DPC has investigated companies and found them innocent before.

Second one, doesn't matter, it's irrelevant to the point we are making as they did not do it intentionally as you are suggesting Ancestry are doing. Or do you have a conspiracy theory about that too?

And you still haven't given any logic as to why people should be more worried about a third party getting their hands on their DNA than on their photos. As I said, are peoples lives going to be more affected if their raunchy photos are posted online without their permission or if their DNA is taken?

_Whimsical_

Yevon wrote: »

Companies can't ask about or take genetic conditions into account for insurance.

At this point in time.
You'd be taking a heft bet on that not changing.

On another note anyone find anything useful or interesting in what is available free?

AndrewJRenko

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

At this point in time.
You'd be taking a heft bet on that not changing.

Indeed, the 2015 review of the Disability Act regs on genetic testing never actually completed iirc, so some degree of change is likely. It's also worth noting that the current regs cover 'employment' but don't cover the gig economy, people who aren't actually employed.



On the broader issue, there are many risks with letting your DNA get outside of your personal control.


It could be held for ransom purposes, with threats to leak or disclose your health issues. It could be used by unscrupulous pharma companies to produce cures which are then only sold for ginormous profits to the highest bidder, and you've helped them along that path. It could be used by unscrupulous law enforcement bodies to further their discriminatory actions against racial groups or social groups. It could be used by unscrupulous governments (let's assume that we have a Trump or a Johnson in power here in ten or twenty years time) to restrict access to healthcare.


And the quality and accuracy of these DNA analyses is suspect too, so the conclusions about your heritage and your health are often questionable.



https://gizmodo.com/how-dna-testing-botched-my-familys-heritage-and-probab-1820932637

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It could be held for ransom purposes

As can anything you keep in the cloud.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It could be used by unscrupulous pharma companies to produce cures which are then only sold for ginormous profits to the highest bidder, and you've helped them along that path.

It could also be used positively in medicine to create cures, but it won't be used in either sense as this is just a conspiracy theory.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It could be used by unscrupulous law enforcement bodies to further their discriminatory actions against racial groups or social groups.

As can many things you can keep in the cloud. Again, won't happen anyway, just a conspiracy theory.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It could be used by unscrupulous governments (let's assume that we have a Trump or a Johnson in power here in ten or twenty years time) to restrict access to healthcare.

Wow, even people in the conspiracy theory forum might take a step back from that one. :pac:

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow, even people in the conspiracy theory forum might take a step back from that one. :pac:

Yeah, if you told them ten years ago that Trump would be heading for a 2nd term as President and Johnson would be UK PM, they'd have laughed you out of the room.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, if you told them ten years ago that Trump would be heading for a 2nd term as President and Johnson would be UK PM, they'd have laughed you out of the room.

That's not what a conspiracy theory is.

torrevieja

Ancestry Free Weekend....

torrevieja

Its Ancestry Free Weekend Enjoy...

Nollog

Useless. Nobody was born all year in my county.

Pistachio19

I was disappointed that you cannot access public trees on the free weekend. While I was able to access records showing up on hints, many of the hints were linked to other people's trees. I was curious to see who else had the same people as me on their tree. I might end up getting membership on a monthly basis seeing as you can easily pass a few hours trawling through records.

blastman

/\/ollog wrote: »

Useless. Nobody was born all year in my county.

You must be from Leitrim...

Francobegbie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So huge, profitable companies like Google and Facebook never do anything shady to make money?


Come on.

I would have quit here :eek:
If that's someones belief then you are wasting your time.
Facial recognition on mobile phones or fingerprint sensors to open numerous apps.......DNA is defintely a sought after data set too

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Indeed, the 2015 review of the Disability Act regs on genetic testing never actually completed iirc, so some degree of change is likely. It's also worth noting that the current regs cover 'employment' but don't cover the gig economy, people who aren't actually employed.



On the broader issue, there are many risks with letting your DNA get outside of your personal control.


It could be held for ransom purposes, with threats to leak or disclose your health issues. It could be used by unscrupulous pharma companies to produce cures which are then only sold for ginormous profits to the highest bidder, and you've helped them along that path. It could be used by unscrupulous law enforcement bodies to further their discriminatory actions against racial groups or social groups. It could be used by unscrupulous governments (let's assume that we have a Trump or a Johnson in power here in ten or twenty years time) to restrict access to healthcare.


And the quality and accuracy of these DNA analyses is suspect too, so the conclusions about your heritage and your health are often questionable.



https://gizmodo.com/how-dna-testing-botched-my-familys-heritage-and-probab-1820932637

What a load of absolute and utter rubbish from start to finish. Ruining the thread too, which would be of interest to a lot of people. Ive family members who sent off their DNA for testing for this, they are really interested in their ancestry and unlike you, don’t have a subscription to their local tin foil hat newsletter.

s1ippy

So the rationale for giving up your data to unscrupulous corporations is that other dodgy companies probably have loads of it already.

s1ippy

s1ippy wrote: »

So the rationale for giving up your data to unscrupulous corporations is that other dodgy companies probably have loads of it already.

What evidence do you have that Ancestry is unscrupulous? And what are these other dodgy companies you are referring to?

s1ippy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What evidence do you have that Ancestry is unscrupulous? And what are these other dodgy companies you are referring to?

I didn't refer to any specifically but many have been outlined in the thread, some by yourself.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So your logic is that the average person would prefer to take the risk of all their money being stolen and possibly or possibly not getting it back over someone stealing their precious DNA?

Most people automatically backup their photos in Dropbox, Google Photos etc. Are these peoples lives going to be more affected if their raunchy photos are posted online without their permission or if their DNA is taken?

As this and other posters note, the law does not entirely protect you.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a much bigger issue.


Wait till you find that you can't get health insurance or life insurance because your DNA showed up a possibility of a genetic condition.


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/don-t-buy-online-dna-ancestry-tests-you-are-the-real-product-1.3713619

Francobegbie wrote: »

Facial recognition on mobile phones or fingerprint sensors to open numerous apps.......DNA is defintely a sought after data set too

As with all other Internet pursuits which could lead to trouble, I would err on the side of caution with these websites. Ask your family what they know about your ancestry, most people would get a huge volume of relevant information from them.

s1ippy

s1ippy wrote: »

I didn't refer to any specifically but many have been outlined in the thread, some by yourself.

I can't see any evidence shown by me or anyone else in this thread that Ancestry is unscrupulous. Instead what has been discussed is what would happen if Ancestry went against their own terms and conditions and sold your DNA information to third parties, which would make any company that did that unscrupulous.

Care to show evidence that they are doing that? If you can't, they are unscrupulous as any company. Or do you believe that any company that has access to personal information that you voluntarily provided them automatically make them unscrupulous?

s1ippy wrote: »

As this and other posters note, the law does not entirely protect you.

I don't know what you're referring to here.

s1ippy wrote: »

As with all other Internet pursuits which could lead to trouble, I would err on the side of caution with these websites. Ask your family what they know about your ancestry, most people would get a huge volume of relevant information from them.

I would highly recommend that you post such a warning in all Bargain Alerts threads which contain links to Amazon etc. that store your debit card details in that case. As I outlined previously, having your debit card details sold to a third party will have a much bigger affect on the average person than having their DNA sold.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't see any evidence shown by me or anyone else in this thread that Ancestry is unscrupulous.

That's really the wrong question to be asking. The question is; do you have evidence that they are scrupulous. Do you have evidence that all their business partners that they do (or ever will) share data with are scrupulous? Do you have evidence that anyone they will ever sell out the company to are scrupulous?

Francobegbie wrote: »

I would have quit here :eek:
If that's someones belief then you are wasting your time.
Facial recognition on mobile phones or fingerprint sensors to open numerous apps.......DNA is defintely a sought after data set too

That's why I don't use facial recognition or fingerprint sensors on phones. Thanks for reminding folks of this important issue.

Braydon Sharp Human wrote: »

What a load of absolute and utter rubbish from start to finish. Ruining the thread too, which would be of interest to a lot of people. Ive family members who sent off their DNA for testing for this, they are really interested in their ancestry and unlike you, don’t have a subscription to their local tin foil hat newsletter.

Good to see you again, Nox. For the record, I'm not stopping anyone from giving away their DNA. I'm just suggesting that they educate themselves and understand the potential risks. Do you reckon Dr Karlin Lillington, tech correspondent for the fairly conservative Irish Times is part of the tin foil hat brigade too?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's really the wrong question to be asking. The question is; do you have evidence that they are scrupulous. Do you have evidence that all their business partners that they do (or ever will) share data with are scrupulous? Do you have evidence that anyone they will ever sell out the company to are scrupulous?

What awful logic. This is a company that has existed for over 20 years and their morality is only every questioned by people who like to scaremonger others. What internet provider do you use? You are aware that you send them personal information every time you buy something online? In what way is your internet provider more scrupulous to you than Ancestry?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's why I don't use facial recognition or fingerprint sensors on phones. Thanks for reminding folks of this important issue.

Ah as I expected, you do not represent the average person but instead are a tin-foil hat wearer. Don't forget to cover your front-facing camera with some paper too!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm just suggesting that they educate themselves and understand the potential risks. Do you reckon Dr Karlin Lillington, tech correspondent for the fairly conservative Irish Times is part of the tin foil hat brigade too?

Yes, she is not an expert in this exact field. I have a PhD in physics but it doesn't mean I am an expert in chemistry and even in physics I wouldn't expect people to agree with what I say like it's gospel.

People are educated just fine about the risks associated with sending their DNA to Ancestry, they have already learned what those risks are by sending other personal information to other websites without having an ounce of worry.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

What awful logic. This is a company that has existed for over 20 years and their morality is only every questioned by people who like to scaremonger others. What internet provider do you use? You are aware that you send them personal information every time you buy something online? In what way is your internet provider more scrupulous to you than Ancestry?

That's why I make sure that everything important that passes through my ISP is encrypted - so they don't have access to that information.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah as I expected, you do not represent the average person but instead are a tin-foil hat wearer. Don't forget to cover your front-facing camera with some paper too!

Do your tin foil hats go well with hoodies?




https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/technology/personaltech/mark-zuckerberg-covers-his-laptop-camera-you-should-consider-it-too.html

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, she is not an expert in this exact field. I have a PhD in physics but it doesn't mean I am an expert in chemistry and even in physics I wouldn't expect people to agree with what I say like it's gospel.

People are educated just fine about the risks associated with sending their DNA to Ancestry, they have already learned what those risks are by sending other personal information to other websites without having an ounce of worry.

She's a tech correspondent for a national newspaper for a long time, 20-ish years I think. Do you think she knows more or less about how tech companies use or abuse data like this than you, or me, or the average Ancestry customer?


On the broader issue, there was a little piece on Moncreiff on Newstalk just now on this issue, which covered some of the softer risks. They mentioned the significant number of people who find out that one parent isn't actually their genetic parent, or that they have additional siblings or half-siblings, and how those people have no intrinsic support to deal with these emerging issues, and find themselves needing psychological support.


But hey, I guess we're all tin-foil hats - me, Zuck, Karlin, Moncreiff and his interviewee. It couldn't possibly be that people who understand tech and the tech industry are best positioned to see the risks, right?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's why I make sure that everything important that passes through my ISP is encrypted - so they don't have access to that information.

But your fingerprint is encrypted on your phone. So why don't you use a fingerprint sensor?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do your tin foil hats go well with hoodies?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/technology/personaltech/mark-zuckerberg-covers-his-laptop-camera-you-should-consider-it-too.html

What point are you trying to make here? You are comparing yourself to blocking your camera in case your images/videos are sent to third parties, to a multi-billionaire who likely has non-stop attempts at his laptop being remotely hacked or who might be blocking his camera for a multitude of others reasons? And you have already stated that you are more concerned with your DNA than with your personal photos, so we know that this wouldn't concern you as much anyway.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

She's a tech correspondent for a national newspaper for a long time, 20-ish years I think. Do you think she knows more or less about how tech companies use or abuse data like this than you, or me, or the average Ancestry customer?

No, because I never said that but you can put words into my mouth if you like. I can send you articles made by tech correspondents with similar experience about why using a fingerprint sensor is nothing to worry about, but it wouldn't change your opinion would it I'm assuming?

And again, she is only suggesting that you should be concerned about sending your DNA data online, she is not suggesting that you should more concerned about sending your DNA data than sending your other personal data online like you seem to be. Like I said, someone with access to your DNA data (as well as your raunchy photos) will have an indirect effect on some of your money (ransom, increase in life insurance etc.), whereas someone with your debit card has a direct connection to all of your money. (And yes, there are ethical considerations, but there are also ethical considerations if someone has your photos).

So, a third party having access to your DNA will have a comparable effect on your life as a third-party having your photos, but you are not overly-concerned with using Dropbox as you are with using Ancestry. Why? And a third party having access to your DNA will have less of an effect on your life as a third-party having access to your debit card details, but you are not as concerned with storing your debit cards online as you are with using Ancestry. Why?

killbillvol2

People really have two much time on their hands. Two equally idiotic arguments going around in circles.

killbillvol2

killbillvol2 wrote: »

People really have two much time on their hands. Two equally idiotic arguments going around in circles.

And some people really don't like it when people have a discussion on a discussion forum. If you have something non-idiotic to say then by all means.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

But your fingerprint is encrypted on your phone. So why don't you use a fingerprint sensor?

I recall looking at the Ts and Cs for the Samsung fingerprint sensor around three years ago. At that time, they were taking the fingerprint data into their cloud. I honestly can't recall whether they were encrypting it or not.



To me, this was an unnecessary measure that creates a risk, so I made the decision to use a pattern for security instead of my fingerprint.

Deleted User wrote: »

What point are you trying to make here? You are comparing yourself to blocking your camera in case your images/videos are sent to third parties, to a multi-billionaire who likely has non-stop attempts at his laptop being remotely hacked or who might be blocking his camera for a multitude of others reasons? And you have already stated that you are more concerned with your DNA than with your personal photos, so we know that this wouldn't concern you as much anyway.

You brought up the issue of laptop camera blocking, suggesting it goes in tin-foil-hat territory. The point I'm making is that one man's tin foil hat territory is another man's simple security measure to reduce risk.

Deleted User wrote: »

No, because I never said that but you can put words into my mouth if you like. I can send you articles made by tech correspondents with similar experience about why using a fingerprint sensor is nothing to worry about, but it wouldn't change your opinion would it I'm assuming?

And again, she is only suggesting that you should be concerned about sending your DNA data online, she is not suggesting that you should more concerned about sending your DNA data than sending your other personal data online like you seem to be. Like I said, someone with access to your DNA data (as well as your raunchy photos) will have an indirect effect on some of your money (ransom, increase in life insurance etc.), whereas someone with your debit card has a direct connection to all of your money. (And yes, there are ethical considerations, but there are also ethical considerations if someone has your photos).

So, a third party having access to your DNA will have a comparable effect on your life as a third-party having your photos, but you are not overly-concerned with using Dropbox as you are with using Ancestry. Why? And a third party having access to your DNA will have less of an effect on your life as a third-party having access to your debit card details, but you are not as concerned with storing your debit cards online as you are with using Ancestry. Why?

Again, you seem to be ignoring the controls that exist to mitigate losses arising for credit card breaches. I had the same credit card account breached twice over six months a couple of years ago. The only unusual thing I had done on that account was adding it to Google Pay, though I can't be certain that was the source of the breach. They put through a bunch of Paypal charges, totalling close to €1k iirc.


It didn't cost me a penny. The bank refunded all the dodgy charges. It cost me a couple of hours of time going to through the process to get refunds, but I didn't cost me a penny. The bank issued a new CC number each time.


Whatcha gonna do when your DNA is leaked?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I recall looking at the Ts and Cs for the Samsung fingerprint sensor around three years ago. At that time, they were taking the fingerprint data into their cloud. I honestly can't recall whether they were encrypting it or not.



To me, this was an unnecessary measure that creates a risk, so I made the decision to use a pattern for security instead of my fingerprint.

Well I'm glad to let you know that that's not the case. Are you going to start using the fingerprint sensor now? Doubt it.

And why does encrypted data in the cloud bother you and not encrypted data sent to your ISP?

And it turns out you are actually are concerned about keeping stuff in the cloud in the end, unlike the average person?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You brought up the issue of laptop camera blocking, suggesting it goes in tin-foil-hat territory. The point I'm making is that one man's tin foil hat territory is another man's simple security measure to reduce risk.

You have made the assumption that I think Zuckerberg is a mentally sane person. :pac:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Again, you seem to be ignoring the controls that exist to mitigate losses arising for credit card breaches. I had the same credit card account breached twice over six months a couple of years ago. The only unusual thing I had done on that account was adding it to Google Pay, though I can't be certain that was the source of the breach. They put through a bunch of Paypal charges, totalling close to €1k iirc.


It didn't cost me a penny. The bank refunded all the dodgy charges. It cost me a couple of hours of time going to through the process to get refunds, but I didn't cost me a penny. The bank issued a new CC number each time.

That's fantastic, and I'm glad you got your money back. And do you think you will get your money back every time? And do you think that everyone has gotten their money back when they are a victim of online fraud? You think people are less concerned with even a small chance of having all of their money taken from them and being destitute than having their DNA data taken? If you gave the average person the option of forcing them to post either their bank account details or their DNA data publicly online, which do you think they would choose?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Whatcha gonna do when your DNA is leaked?

Absolutely nothing. If I had access to a text file containing my DNA data I would gladly attach it to this message.

But again, you keep ignoring my comparison to someone's private pictures being stolen. What are you going to do if such photos are leaked? And is your life going be more affected if your private photos are leaked or if your DNA is leaked? If you think the former, then you should be more concerned about using things like Dropbox then Ancestry, and if you think the latter, then give some logical reasons why.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I'm glad to let you know that that's not the case. Are you going to start using the fingerprint sensor now? Doubt it.

And why does encrypted data in the cloud bother you and not encrypted data sent to your ISP?

And it turns out you are actually are concerned about keeping stuff in the cloud in the end, unlike the average person?

I'm probably not going to use it now, as I don't what significant benefit would result for me. The pattern protection works fine for me. I don't fancy trawling through the privacy statements every few weeks to check every available option.


I don't tend to send biometric information over my ISP, so it is biometric information that is of particular concern for me.


And yes, I am concerned about keeping stuff in the cloud. That's not to say that I don't keep anything in the cloud - I do. But I'm concerned and cautious about it.

Deleted User wrote: »

You have made the assumption that I think Zuckerberg is a mentally sane person.

Whatever. You brought up the issue.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's fantastic, and I'm glad you got your money back. And do you think you will get your money back every time? And do you think that everyone has gotten their money back when they are a victim of online fraud? You think people are less concerned with even a small chance of having all of their money taken from them and being destitute than having their DNA data taken? If you gave the average person the option of forcing them to post either their bank account details or their DNA data publicly online, which do you think they would choose?

Absolutely nothing. If I had access to a text file containing my DNA data I would gladly attach it to this message.

But again, you keep ignoring my comparison to someone's private pictures being stolen. What are you going to do if such photos are leaked? And is your life going be more affected if your private photos are leaked or if your DNA is leaked? If you think the former, then you should be more concerned about using things like Dropbox then Ancestry, and if you think the latter, then give some logical reasons why.

There is no scenario for me that would result in 'all my money being taken'. Money is spread over different accounts in different institutions. If they want to take all money, the easiest way would be to hold a gun to my head and force me to give over the details rather than any kind of online attack.


That's your choice to share your DNA, though I note it is a theoretical position for you. If anyone else wants to share their DNA having understood the risks involved, well that's great for them.


I don't keep sensitive photos in the cloud, so there is no real comparison there for me.

But why are you so hostile about people understanding the risks involved in what they're doing?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm probably not going to use it now, as I don't what significant benefit would result for me. The pattern protection works fine for me. I don't fancy trawling through the privacy statements every few weeks to check every available option.


I don't tend to send biometric information over my ISP, so it is biometric information that is of particular concern for me.


And yes, I am concerned about keeping stuff in the cloud. That's not to say that I don't keep anything in the cloud - I do. But I'm concerned and cautious about it.

Then why have you not made similar posts in other threads warning people to be cautious when using cloud services?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is no scenario for me that would result in 'all my money being taken'. Money is spread over different accounts in different institutions. If they want to take all money, the easiest way would be to hold a gun to my head and force me to give over the details rather than any kind of online attack.

And do you think this is true for the average person?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't keep sensitive photos in the cloud, so there is no real comparison there for me.

But there is real comparison to be made, because the average person does automatically backup all of their photos to the cloud. Why do you feel the need to warn people against using a service when you have demonstrated many times that you do no represent the average person that would use such a service?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But why are you so hostile about people understanding the risks involved in what they're doing?

Because you're scare-mongering people into not using a service without any logic or reasoning other than the fact that you personally don't do likewise with other personal data like photos even though the average person does do so without any caution or worry.

So will you admit that if the average person feels comfortable backing up their personal photos online that they should also feel comfortable sending their DNA data? Or are you going to give reasons as to why that's not true?