[Melting_Harps]

> This disaster is the perfect counter-argument to those always saying

Personally speaking, I think Equihax was the better counter-argument; at least with 23andme YOU as a customer had to DECIDE to use their services and weigh the pros-cons of doing so, with Equihax I was forced into a rating system to determine my eligibility in a system that hoovers up any and all data sold to them by 3rd parties and holds all my personal information in order to complete anything from a loan application to a job application.

And when found to have been breached no effective recourse was made, and instead of admitting fault to a very high probability of Identity theft being the end result a token 'credit system monitoring' service was offered, which once again relies on these credit agencies who share/distribute this information without my consent and created the problem are let off scot-free and never suffer any consequences.

In short, it's a naive argument made from often ignorant and self-defeating practices that make others worse off because of their complacency and refusal to take privacy serious.

[skummetmaelk]

Completely true. However, Equifax was probably hard to wrap your head around. Whereas 23andme might seem a lot more personal and private to the average person. Of course, nothing is likely to come of this regardless.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Not identity theft. Libel. There's a high probability a bank will libel people whose info Equifax leaked. They'll do that because they depend solely on the same (largely public) data compaies like Equifax collect to identify loan applicants.

[envp]

Sure the customers decided, but what about their relatives? If any of my relatives uploaded their genetic info to this, it by extension has a huge part of my genetic info too, and my consent was decided without my knowlegde...

What I'm trying to say is: I don't think comparing it to equifax is reasonable in that regard.