Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ancestry free weekend

2»

Comments

  • #52
    tylercheribini
    Registered Users Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭tylercheribini


    For many adoptee's/fostered people etc struggling against bureaucratic resistance to find information regarding their identity,private companies like Ancestry are the only option they have. The vast majority of people have the luxury of wagging their fingers at this minority for divulging this personal data to a private company but it is often only when all other options have been exhausted.


  • #53
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    tylercheribini wrote: »
    For many adoptee's/fostered people etc struggling against bureaucratic resistance to find information regarding their identity,private companies like Ancestry are the only option they have. The vast majority of people have the luxury of wagging their fingers at this minority for divulging this personal data to a private company but it is often only when all other options have been exhausted.

    I'm not wagging fingers at anyone, other than those who want to rush into this without really knowing what they are doing.

    If someone makes a mature judgement on the risks and benefits, that's great for them. This is a personal decision. It's not for me to tell people what they should or shouldn't do.


  • #54
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Then why have you not made similar posts in other threads warning people to be cautious when using cloud services?
    This isn't my job. I don't have a service level for giving responses to threads.

    If I had seen a thread that involved uploading biometrics, I would possibly have commented on it. If I didn't see it, then I didn't see it.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And do you think this is true for the average person?
    Well, yes. Have you come across many cases of people who've lost all their money as a result of being hacked.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    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?

    Do many people upload confidential, sensitive photos to the cloud?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.
    I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm just pointing out risks.

    It is telling that you seem to have a big problem with these risks being discussed though.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    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?

    One reason - because the importance of personal photos is in a different league to the importance of DNA, for most people.


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    This isn't my job. I don't have a service level for giving responses to threads.

    If I had seen a thread that involved uploading biometrics, I would possibly have commented on it. If I didn't see it, then I didn't see it.

    Here is loads of them in what I presume is your favourite forum, knock yourself out.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Well, yes. Have you come across many cases of people who've lost all their money as a result of being hacked.
    That was not my question. My question was does the average person have their money spread across different accounts in different institutions? And the answer is of course no, and you therefore do not represent the average person.

    But to answer your question, one person. Which is strangely greater than the number of people I know who have been affected by their DNA data being stolen (or are even worried about it being stolen), and which is also smaller than the number of people who I know have used a site like Ancestry.

    But I guess if you have been breached twice within a six month period it must be quite common. So tell me, do you think the average person who has all of the money in one account will worry more about that account being breached or about their DNA data being sold? If they saw one website that posted their bank details, one that posted their sensitive photos and one that posted their DNA data, which website site do you think they are going to contact first to take it down?
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Do many people upload confidential, sensitive photos to the cloud?

    Yes. 1.2 billion photos are uploaded to Google Photos alone every day, and the average person does not go through their uploads daily to delete particular photos. How do I know this? Because I am an average person with average friends who all backup all of their photos by default.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm just pointing out risks.

    But you have pointed out no risks that the average person is not already susceptible to with using cloud services, that's the problem. You have given no reason as to why using Ancestry is riskier than storing your photos in the cloud, and yet you clearly are not overly-concerned about the latter nor do you feel any need to alert the masses about the latter.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »

    One reason - because the importance of personal photos is in a different league to the importance of DNA, for most people.

    Is that what you've resorted to? Your argument is now "Dude of course someone will be more bothered about their DNA being stolen than their sensitive photos being posted publicly online because, eh, you know, it's DNA and, like, I mean, it's DNA! C'mon man!", or are you going to actually give reasons? You have it ingrained in your brain that the average person would be affected more if their DNA was stolen but you can't explain it in words, because it simply isn't true.


  • #56
    Suckit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,211 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    I am only seeing this now, so I missed the offer.
    But don't they offer free 14 day trial to new subscribers?
    Or is that different?


  • #57
    torrevieja
    Registered Users Posts: 1,672 ✭✭✭torrevieja


    Ancestry Free weekend Has now Finished Have a Great Day...


  • #58
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Here is loads of them in what I presume is your favourite forum, knock yourself out.
    A quick search would tell you that it's far from my favourite forum. I did get dragged into one thread there some years back, but that's about it. When I see some of the thread titles on the home page, I really wonder how/why boards provides a platform for this nonsense, but I guess that's above my pay grade.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    That was not my question. My question was does the average person have their money spread across different accounts in different institutions? And the answer is of course no, and you therefore do not represent the average person.
    Well, yes - certainly across different accounts. Do you know many people who keep their entire financial resources in their current account or credit card account? Most people have heard of the idea of savings accounts, credit union accounts etc.

    There are of course people who have no financial resources beyond this week's pay cheque, but I guess that's another story.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    But to answer your question, one person. Which is strangely greater than the number of people I know who have been affected by their DNA data being stolen (or are even worried about it being stolen), and which is also smaller than the number of people who I know have used a site like Ancestry.
    Again, you're asking the wrong question for an emerging technology. The important question isn't the number who have been affected. The important question is the number of people who WILL BE affected in the future, and how will they be affected.

    Of course, that requires a bit of crystal ball gazing on both the quantity and the severity side of the analysis.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    But I guess if you have been breached twice within a six month period it must be quite common. So tell me, do you think the average person who has all of the money in one account will worry more about that account being breached or about their DNA data being sold? If they saw one website that posted their bank details, one that posted their sensitive photos and one that posted their DNA data, which website site do you think they are going to contact first to take it down?
    You're probably right here to say that the average person would be more concerned about their finances or their photos than their DNA.

    That doesn't mean that they are right. It also doesn't mean that sharing your DNA with businesses who may do whatever the hell they like with it in the future is a good idea.
    Deleted User wrote: »


    Yes. 1.2 billion photos are uploaded to Google Photos alone every day, and the average person does not go through their uploads daily to delete particular photos. How do I know this? Because I am an average person with average friends who all backup all of their photos by default.
    Congratulations on your appointment as spokesperson for the average person. Tell me, does the average person upload that short clip of them shagging their spouse or perhaps shagging someone else's spouse to the cloud also?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    But you have pointed out no risks that the average person is not already susceptible to with using cloud services, that's the problem. You have given no reason as to why using Ancestry is riskier than storing your photos in the cloud, and yet you clearly are not overly-concerned about the latter nor do you feel any need to alert the masses about the latter.
    Perhaps you should go back and read my posts again, particularly the linked articles.

    You won't find out that your father is not actually your father as a result of posting photos to the cloud.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    Is that what you've resorted to? Your argument is now "Dude of course someone will be more bothered about their DNA being stolen than their sensitive photos being posted publicly online because, eh, you know, it's DNA and, like, I mean, it's DNA! C'mon man!", or are you going to actually give reasons? You have it ingrained in your brain that the average person would be affected more if their DNA was stolen but you can't explain it in words, because it simply isn't true.

    Not because it's DNA, but because of the potential impacts of your DNA getting outside your direct control as discussed in my posts and the various linked articles.


  • #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    A quick search would tell you that it's far from my favourite forum. I did get dragged into one thread there some years back, but that's about it. When I see some of the thread titles on the home page, I really wonder how/why boards provides a platform for this nonsense, but I guess that's above my pay grade.

    Agreed. :)
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Well, yes - certainly across different accounts. Do you know many people who keep their entire financial resources in their current account or credit card account? Most people have heard of the idea of savings accounts, credit union accounts etc.
    There are of course people who have no financial resources beyond this week's pay cheque, but I guess that's another story.

    Well, there's a good chunk and I can't personally think of anyone I know who has multiple accounts, but perhaps that is because I am relatively young.

    Regardless, the point being made wasn't specifically about going completely bankrupt, the point was that the average person is more worried about losing a lot of their money over someone having access to their DNA data, and you agreed with that belief below anyway.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Again, you're asking the wrong question for an emerging technology. The important question isn't the number who have been affected. The important question is the number of people who WILL BE affected in the future, and how will they be affected.

    Of course, that requires a bit of crystal ball gazing on both the quantity and the severity side of the analysis.

    In what way is a technology that went into the public mainstream the same year the first iPhone came out an "emergent technology"?

    Besides, all you are saying here is that you believe that more people are going to be affected by a particular piece of personal data (their DNA) in the future than they are by other personal data (photos, bank info) without any evidence that this is the case. You do know that that is by definition a conspiracy theory right?
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You're probably right here to say that the average person would be more concerned about their finances or their photos than their DNA.

    That doesn't mean that they are right. It also doesn't mean that sharing your DNA with businesses who may do whatever the hell they like with it in the future is a good idea.

    Great, so now you're backtracking because you evidently were not of this opinion earlier. And again, you've completely made some up conspiracy about a company doing "whatever the hell they like" with your DNA data even though Amazon and Dropbox are not doing "whatever the hell they like" with your money or photos. You are just internally skewed towards seeing DNA companies as "evil" for no reason.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Congratulations on your appointment as spokesperson for the average person. Tell me, does the average person upload that short clip of them shagging their spouse or perhaps shagging someone else's spouse to the cloud also?

    Yes in fact, the average person does back up everything in the cloud as the average person is not completely paranoid and is more concerned about having storage space on their phone. Heck, the iCloud celebritiy photo leak demonstrates that. And was their a significant drop in people using iCloud when that leak happened? Nope. Does that leak show that the average person is aware of the risks involved in using such a cloud service to store their personal photos? Yes. Conclusion - the average person does not need to learn anything new from you or anybody else about the risks involved with sending personal data as they are already fully aware.

    If anything, the average person is more concerned that their photos will be stolen if their phone is stolen or if they leave it behind in a pub (even though that's also nothing to be concerned about). But I doubt you're going around telling people to wear their phone around their neck with a chain?
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You won't find out that your father is not actually your father as a result of posting photos to the cloud.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say people are using Ancestry for that purpose anyway, so they already know the risk if it turns out they find something they weren't expecting. That has nothing to do with your DNA being stolen except in the sense that it can be used as ransom, just like personal photos.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Perhaps you should go back and read my posts again, particularly the linked articles.

    You won't find out that your father is not actually your father as a result of posting photos to the cloud.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Not because it's DNA, but because of the potential impacts of your DNA getting outside your direct control as discussed in my posts and the various linked articles.

    Don't worry, I have read these articles. And again, I have found no reasons to worry as an average person who feels comfortable backing up his photos online. My personal photos can be used as ransom in the same way DNA can be used as ransom, they can also be used to show previous medical conditions and thereby increase my life insurance etc. You have given no reasons as to why I or any non-paranoid person should worry. All you've demonstrated is that they can have a similar impact to your photos being stolen without the added embarrassment of having your photos publicly online.

    So, again, if the average person feels comfortable backing up their personal photos online, why shouldn't they also feel comfortable sending their DNA data?


Advertisement