23andMe offers two data deletion options. "Account Closure" removes your profile and reports, disconnects you from DNA relatives, and prevents further participation in research. However, de-identified genetic data may be retained for internal research unless you specifically opt out. "Spit Kit Destruction" goes further, requiring contacting customer support to have your physical sample destroyed. While 23andMe claims anonymized data may still be used, they assert it can no longer be linked back to you. For the most comprehensive data removal, pursue both Account Closure and Spit Kit Destruction.
Mark Klein, the AT&T technician who blew the whistle on the NSA's warrantless surveillance program in 2006, has died. Klein's revelations exposed a secret room in an AT&T facility in San Francisco where the NSA was copying internet traffic. His whistleblowing was instrumental in bringing the program to light and sparking a national debate about government surveillance and privacy rights. He faced immense pressure and legal challenges for his actions but remained committed to defending civil liberties. The EFF remembers him as a hero who risked everything to expose government overreach.
HN commenters remember Mark Klein and his pivotal role in exposing the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. Several express gratitude for his bravery and the impact his whistleblowing had on privacy advocacy. Some discuss the technical aspects of the room 641A setup and the implications for network security. Others lament the limited consequences faced by the involved parties and the ongoing struggle for digital privacy in the face of government surveillance. A few commenters share personal anecdotes related to Klein and his work. The overall sentiment is one of respect for Klein's courage and a renewed call for stronger protections against government overreach.
EFF warns that age verification laws, ostensibly designed to restrict access to adult content, pose a serious threat to online privacy. While initially targeting pornography sites, these laws are expanding to encompass broader online activities, such as accessing skincare products, potentially requiring users to upload government IDs to third-party verification services. This creates a massive database of sensitive personal information vulnerable to breaches, government surveillance, and misuse by private companies, effectively turning age verification into a backdoor for widespread online monitoring. The EFF argues that these laws are overbroad, ineffective at their stated goals, and disproportionately harm marginalized communities.
HN commenters express concerns about the slippery slope of age verification laws, starting with porn and potentially expanding to other online content and even everyday purchases. They argue that these laws normalize widespread surveillance and data collection, creating honeypots for hackers and potentially enabling government abuse. Several highlight the ineffectiveness of age gates, pointing to easy bypass methods and the likelihood of children accessing restricted content through other means. The chilling effect on free speech and the potential for discriminatory enforcement are also raised, with some commenters drawing parallels to authoritarian regimes. Some suggest focusing on better education and parental controls rather than restrictive legislation. The technical feasibility and privacy implications of various verification methods are debated, with skepticism towards relying on government IDs or private companies.
A new report reveals California law enforcement misused state databases over 7,000 times in 2023, a significant increase from previous years. These violations, documented by the California Department of Justice, ranged from unauthorized access for personal reasons to sharing information improperly with third parties. The most frequent abuses involved accessing driver's license information and criminal histories, raising concerns about privacy and potential discrimination. While the report highlights increased reporting and accountability measures, the sheer volume of violations underscores the need for continued oversight and stricter enforcement to prevent future misuse of sensitive personal data.
Hacker News users discuss the implications of California law enforcement's misuse of state databases. Several express concern over the lack of meaningful consequences for officers, suggesting the fines are too small to deter future abuse. Some highlight the potential chilling effect on reporting crimes, particularly domestic violence, if victims fear their information will be improperly accessed. Others call for greater transparency and public access to the audit data, along with stricter penalties for offenders, including termination and criminal charges. The need for stronger oversight and systemic changes within law enforcement agencies is a recurring theme. A few commenters question the scope of permissible searches and the definition of "misuse," suggesting further clarification is needed.
A federal court ruled the NSA's warrantless searches of Americans' data under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act unconstitutional. The court found that the "backdoor searches," querying a database of collected communications for information about Americans, violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. This landmark decision significantly limits the government's ability to search this data without a warrant, marking a major victory for digital privacy. The ruling specifically focuses on querying data already collected, not the collection itself, and the government may appeal.
HN commenters largely celebrate the ruling against warrantless searches of 702 data, viewing it as a significant victory for privacy. Several highlight the problematic nature of the "backdoor search" loophole and its potential for abuse. Some express skepticism about the government's likely appeals and the long road ahead to truly protect privacy. A few discuss the technical aspects of 702 collection and the challenges in balancing national security with individual rights. One commenter points out the irony of the US government criticizing other countries' surveillance practices while engaging in similar activities domestically. Others offer cautious optimism, hoping this ruling sets a precedent for future privacy protections.
Summary of Comments ( 5 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43486236
HN commenters largely discuss the complexities of truly deleting genetic data. Several express skepticism that 23andMe or similar services can fully remove data, citing research collaborations, anonymized datasets, and the potential for data reconstruction. Some suggest more radical approaches like requesting physical sample destruction, while others debate the ethical implications of research using genetic data and the individual's right to control it. The difficulty of separating individual data from aggregated research sets is a recurring theme, with users acknowledging the potential benefits of research while still desiring greater control over their personal information. A few commenters also mention the potential for law enforcement access to such data and the implications for privacy.
The Hacker News post "How to Delete Your 23andMe Data" has a moderate number of comments, discussing various aspects of genetic data privacy and the complexities of truly deleting such sensitive information.
Several commenters express skepticism about the efficacy of 23andMe's deletion process, pointing out that true deletion of data is difficult, especially when it has potentially been used in aggregate analyses or shared with research partners. One commenter highlights the distinction between "individual data" and "aggregate data," suggesting that while 23andMe might remove individual identifiers, the underlying genetic information might still be retained and used in broader studies. This leads to a discussion about the inherent value of genetic data for research, and the ethical considerations surrounding its use.
Some comments also mention the potential legal implications of data retention, particularly in light of law enforcement requests. One user points out that even if 23andMe deletes the data, they may still be compelled to provide it if legally required. This raises concerns about the security and privacy of genetic information, even after a user requests its deletion.
A few commenters share their personal experiences with 23andMe's data deletion process, with varying degrees of satisfaction. Some report a smooth and straightforward experience, while others express frustration with the complexity or lack of clarity in the process.
The conversation also touches upon the broader issue of data ownership and control in the digital age. One comment questions whether individuals truly "own" their genetic data, given the complexities of data sharing and analysis within the scientific and commercial landscape. This leads to a discussion about the need for clearer regulations and greater transparency regarding the use of personal data, particularly sensitive information like genetic data.
Finally, some commenters mention alternative genetic testing services and their data privacy policies, offering a comparative perspective on how different companies handle user data. This provides a practical element to the discussion, allowing users to consider various options based on their individual privacy preferences.