It's not. It is a pro-consumer Trojan horse. It appears to be pro-consumer, but the vast majority of 23andMe customers will be harmed by the AG abandoning their responsibility to protect the public through direct action against 23andMe.
It's not even your own data. If family members used 23andMe and don't see this notice, then your genetic data is still part of 23andMe whether you like it or not.
You're assuming it is within the AG's power to force 23andMe to destroy their data, however they can only enforce existing laws. The only law that can force 23andMe to destroy their data requires a request from the consumer. Thus this is less an abandoning of responsibility and more like a desperate cry for action.
As we've discovered with the current federal administration, there is what's in your power (what you can actually do) and there is what's in your power (a convenient excuse not to take decisive action).
The AG isn't "playing the game" because many of these people who hold office are participants in a system of patronage by people who want de-regulation or regulatory capture.
edit: "Norms" is a word that has started to be commonly used to describe situations in which someone was allowed to do something but it was generally considered against the unwritten rules.
Norms is a word that is used to defend inaction even though action is possible, and you'll notice one side dis-empowers themselves by conflating the idea of against norms with being against the rules.
Perhaps said AG has come to the conclusion that litigation would be fruitless and that warning the public has the most upside for the public?
Also it seems you’ve made this political because Democrats and California exist I guess? They are Big Scary Monsters for conservatives I suppose? I don’t really get it and the point you’re attempting to make seems based on a misreading.
I vote democrat. I really do, but I am upset with democrats because they aren't crafting a world we want to live in and they will take any excuse they can to do nothing or something close to nothing instead of actually doing something.
One of the reasons democrat don't get voted for is because they are incapable of governance even in their own strongholds because they engage in the conflict of interest of taking corporate donations. When a politician acts against a citizen, there is no consequence. When a politician acts against a corporation, donations are reduced or transferred to their opponents.
Before a general election is a primary, and before a primary is fundraising. During fundraising, which acts as a filter for candidates, and is therefore a form of election, money votes first, which is why we have a country that feels like politicians represent corporations (they do, corporations vote first by voting with money), rather than people.
Well said, and I agree generally. I’m not happy with the political situation in the US either. But this still seems like a very pro-consumer action taken by the AG. Perhaps not as pro-consumer as suing them into non-existence and destroying their (our?) data.
But honestly the Dems have been out-played at every level. I suspect we’re going to have to leave them behind if we wish to fix what ails us in this country.
But also as people constantly remind me when I am upset: the thing you’re upset about is only tangentially relevant. :)
