If 23 and Me goes bankrupt, they will sell all of the biometric data they’ve collected over decades to the highest bidder. Why can’t the US government step in to purchase the company and establish a public trust?

  • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 days ago

    Honestly, the law enforcement implications of the government buying the database is just as scary as a 3rd party. Hell I bet a company buys the data and sells access to the FBI, and local law enforcement for a subscription fee.

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        Cuz they print the money and set policing budgets astronomically high. A warrant requires paperwork and a judge (though FISA made that a joke), just buying it outright is far easier.

      • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        You answered your own question. So they don’t need a warrant. For a fee, they can run ALL DNA collected against just about everyone, no probable cause required.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago

          I don’t even know if that would be legal, but that doesn’t matter. The fee creates a little bit of disconnection so both parties can assume that questions of legality are the others’ responsibility.

          This doesn’t make it legal either, it just makes it more likely to happen, and slightly harder to prosecute.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      the law enforcement implications of the government buying the database is just as scary as

      … governments forming an arms-length secure repository for your healthcare or passport or tax or criminal data with regulations, procedures and penalties around proper or improper access.

      Oh shit: they do.

      Calm down. It’s in its worst state now, and the non-profit alternatives fail and go under as often as dotcoms (to similar off-sale effect after a period of really shitty security); so the idea of trusting the people you’ve elected to keep the public trust, to keep more of the public in trust, in the public eye and subject to your continued tuning at the voting booths, is a viable option.