Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Attorney General Phil Wiser, joined by a partisan coalition of
(00:02):
twenty eight states and filing a lawsuit on behalf of
consumers objecting to the proposed sale of personal genetic information
collected by twenty three and ME. The lawsuit ad a
separate objection to the bankruptcy sale, each filed in Federal
Bankruptcy Court in Saint Louis on Monday. They're trying to
stop the bankrupt company from auctioning off the private genetic
data of roughly fifteen million customers to the highest bidder
(00:24):
without customer's knowledge or consent. Joining me now in the
KWA comment Spirit Health Hotline is Attorney General Wiser, Thanks
for coming on with us. Much to get to and
some other things that are more relevant maybe in the news,
but I do want to start with this lawsuit. And
I say this personally. I was part of twenty three
in ME and my genetic data. I didn't realize as
Attorney General that they were trying to actually do this.
(00:45):
But what do we need to know as to what
the process with the case at this point?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Well, right now, twenty three ME is in bankruptcy and
they have taken the position that one of the assets
the company has is your private information in this case, Marty,
literally your private information. Other people who have given genetic
information have had that information analyze for purposes of medical conditions,
for purposes of who they related to. This information for
(01:13):
many people's sensors and private people may have vulnerability to diseases.
People may have relatives who they haven't necessarily shared broadly
because a lot of people end up having relationships that
they didn't know about until they go in twenty three and
this is all information that if it gets out there
in the wrong way, it's going to be harmful to people.
(01:34):
It's going to invade people's privacy, and it breaks the
basic promise when you signed up. You were signing up
to give the information for them and to them to
keep it safe, not for them to sell it off
to someone who you didn't know who it was, and
you didn't say it was okay. So that's why we're
in court. And the top it off, Kala has a
privacy law that specifically says you can't do this, and
so we're protecting Coloradden's and enforcing the law.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
So what I see with twenty three and means they
have the technology that may be attractive to a buyer. Obviously,
the genetic data would be very attractive. I'm sure that's
why they want to sell it, because that would be
something that a company, you would hope somebody in good hands,
but maybe not such a good and reliable company would
want because of that valuable data. It's worth money to
twenty three in me in the bankruptcy, right.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
That's correct. This is going on because there are potential
buyers who could buy it for whatever reasons, whether legitimate
or nefarious. Once the data is sold and someone else
has it, they then may not be keeping it secure.
They the using it for purposes that you are horrified by.
We want to make sure that doesn't happen and the
(02:39):
data is used as it was envisioned and is not
essentially put out there in ways they could be harmful
to you.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
So if this lawsuit goes through and you're on the
winning side of it, what happens to that data? I
know there's talk about we consumers of it. I have
the ability to, I guess, take it out and destroy it,
I think, or something like that if I remember from
reporting months ago. But then what happens with that is
just sitting there into perpetuity. But where does that genetic
data go?
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Then my view is the data should either be used
for the purpose that it was given for you to
have this repository of your information and you can access it.
If the company can't operate as a going concern as
it was envisioned and for the purpose of that data
was given, they should destroy the data. They should not
keep data just because someone somewhere might want it for
(03:25):
some other purpose. They should use it for the purpose
that it was given, or they should destroy it. And
this is a broader theme may for data privacy. A
lot of companies collect a lot of data, and one
of the requirements of Caudal law is that every year
these companies who have this sensitive data need to do
a data protection assessment. How much data have they collected,
who has access to it? Why are they keeping it?
(03:47):
Too Often companies keep data like this sort of data,
very sensitive data, and then it ends up in a
data breach and sometimes on the dark web I can
use against people. So this is something we're really concerned about.
We want to make sure data is managers responsibly and
consumers privacy is protected.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
We're going to continue to follow up on the story
and we'll check in with you again as things progress
with this, But we need to move on to things
where are more relevant in the news. And I want
to ask your response and envision of this. You see
the protest, you see the demonstrations, your action and responsibility
is the top law enforcement official here in the state.
Are you talking with the police seeing what's going on?
What is your response and action or is there anything
(04:23):
you do at this point? But let it play out.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Well, we're monitoring the situation for sure. First and foremost
Denver police yesterday have the reports now that they made
some arrests for people who engage in illegal activity. This
is a critical line in terms of the basics of
our nation. The First Amendment protects people's right to protest,
but violent activity, graffiti, any forms of attack on people
(04:49):
that's not okay, that is criminal, that deserves accountability. And
the question that obviously looms and what's happened in la
is does the p doesn't have authority to actually call
up the National Guard and direct the National Guard from
a federal level. And I am really concerned about those
(05:11):
actions because the National Guard and the military more generally
are not meant to be directed by the federal government.
They're not meant to be used for law enforcement unless
we have some form of invasion or rebellion. That's not
happening in LA and it's certainly not happening in Colorado.
So I'm hopeful we can keep peaceful protests. I want
(05:32):
to see this litigation in California go forward. Given what
I know about the law, I think the federal government
has a very weak case, and I believe the judge
will rule that the calling off the National Guard was illegal.
And as for protesters, it's critical that people recognize on
their right to protest is only peaceful and as soon
as they break the law in any shape or form,
(05:54):
the matter what the protest is, they're engaging Crome activity,
they need to be held accountable.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
There's clarity there. But I do want to follow up
again for your legal purchase, because I did want to
ask you this. Does the President aside whether or not
he should or should not do this, but does he
have the legal authority to supersede a governor and estate
with the guard with calling in the Marines or does
he have to declare what is it the Insurrection Act
to do that? I mean, where does the law and
the power of the president sit versus a sitting governor,
(06:19):
and could he if you wanted to call up the
National Guard marines here in Colorado over assuming if governor
police would object to that.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yeah, you make a very important point. The governor controls
the national Guard. If the governor says, I want to
call it the national guard, or I want the president
to have a national guard at the president's disposal for
some enforcement issue of whatever kind it might be. That's
one thing that's not the case in California, And presumably
Governor Polls is not suggesting that here. What you put
(06:47):
your finger on is if the governor says no, what
just cations could exist? And the law is very clear
it has to be a rebellion, an active rebellion, It
has to be an active invasion that type of national emergency.
That's also the case of the Insurrection Act. It has
to be a justified national emergency. Isn't just something the
(07:07):
president can make about a thin era. And we challenge
in another case, the president's use of his tariff authority.
In that case, there's also the question of was there
an emergency that justified teriffs and there the president had
I would say better ad justications than the President had here.
But the President lost that case too. We won a
three zero decision, including one of the President Trump's appointees
(07:29):
ruling our way because there was no basis for the action,
and we live under a nation of laws, and it's
very important that the president not be above the law,
the president not be able to act outside the law.
Here with the National Guard, there is a legal framework.
It has to be followed. It wasn't filed in California,
and that's why I leave that case is going to
be successful.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Colorado Attorney General Phil Wiser, thank
Speaker 2 (07:50):
You, Thank you,
Attorney General Phil Wiser, joined by a partisan coalition of
(00:02):
twenty eight states and filing a lawsuit on behalf of
consumers objecting to the proposed sale of personal genetic information
collected by twenty three and ME. The lawsuit ad a
separate objection to the bankruptcy sale, each filed in Federal
Bankruptcy Court in Saint Louis on Monday. They're trying to
stop the bankrupt company from auctioning off the private genetic
data of roughly fifteen million customers to the highest bidder
(00:24):
without customer's knowledge or consent. Joining me now in the
KWA comment Spirit Health Hotline is Attorney General Wiser, Thanks
for coming on with us. Much to get to and
some other things that are more relevant maybe in the news,
but I do want to start with this lawsuit. And
I say this personally. I was part of twenty three
in ME and my genetic data. I didn't realize as
Attorney General that they were trying to actually do this.
(00:45):
But what do we need to know as to what
the process with the case at this point?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Well, right now, twenty three ME is in bankruptcy and
they have taken the position that one of the assets
the company has is your private information in this case, Marty,
literally your private information. Other people who have given genetic
information have had that information analyze for purposes of medical conditions,
for purposes of who they related to. This information for
(01:13):
many people's sensors and private people may have vulnerability to diseases.
People may have relatives who they haven't necessarily shared broadly
because a lot of people end up having relationships that
they didn't know about until they go in twenty three and
this is all information that if it gets out there
in the wrong way, it's going to be harmful to people.
(01:34):
It's going to invade people's privacy, and it breaks the
basic promise when you signed up. You were signing up
to give the information for them and to them to
keep it safe, not for them to sell it off
to someone who you didn't know who it was, and
you didn't say it was okay. So that's why we're
in court. And the top it off, Kala has a
privacy law that specifically says you can't do this, and
so we're protecting Coloradden's and enforcing the law.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
So what I see with twenty three and means they
have the technology that may be attractive to a buyer. Obviously,
the genetic data would be very attractive. I'm sure that's
why they want to sell it, because that would be
something that a company, you would hope somebody in good hands,
but maybe not such a good and reliable company would
want because of that valuable data. It's worth money to
twenty three in me in the bankruptcy, right.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
That's correct. This is going on because there are potential
buyers who could buy it for whatever reasons, whether legitimate
or nefarious. Once the data is sold and someone else
has it, they then may not be keeping it secure.
They the using it for purposes that you are horrified by.
We want to make sure that doesn't happen and the
(02:39):
data is used as it was envisioned and is not
essentially put out there in ways they could be harmful
to you.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
So if this lawsuit goes through and you're on the
winning side of it, what happens to that data? I
know there's talk about we consumers of it. I have
the ability to, I guess, take it out and destroy it,
I think, or something like that if I remember from
reporting months ago. But then what happens with that is
just sitting there into perpetuity. But where does that genetic
data go?
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Then my view is the data should either be used
for the purpose that it was given for you to
have this repository of your information and you can access it.
If the company can't operate as a going concern as
it was envisioned and for the purpose of that data
was given, they should destroy the data. They should not
keep data just because someone somewhere might want it for
(03:25):
some other purpose. They should use it for the purpose
that it was given, or they should destroy it. And
this is a broader theme may for data privacy. A
lot of companies collect a lot of data, and one
of the requirements of Caudal law is that every year
these companies who have this sensitive data need to do
a data protection assessment. How much data have they collected,
who has access to it? Why are they keeping it?
(03:47):
Too Often companies keep data like this sort of data,
very sensitive data, and then it ends up in a
data breach and sometimes on the dark web I can
use against people. So this is something we're really concerned about.
We want to make sure data is managers responsibly and
consumers privacy is protected.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
We're going to continue to follow up on the story
and we'll check in with you again as things progress
with this, But we need to move on to things
where are more relevant in the news. And I want
to ask your response and envision of this. You see
the protest, you see the demonstrations, your action and responsibility
is the top law enforcement official here in the state.
Are you talking with the police seeing what's going on?
What is your response and action or is there anything
(04:23):
you do at this point? But let it play out.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Well, we're monitoring the situation for sure. First and foremost
Denver police yesterday have the reports now that they made
some arrests for people who engage in illegal activity. This
is a critical line in terms of the basics of
our nation. The First Amendment protects people's right to protest,
but violent activity, graffiti, any forms of attack on people
(04:49):
that's not okay, that is criminal, that deserves accountability. And
the question that obviously looms and what's happened in la
is does the p doesn't have authority to actually call
up the National Guard and direct the National Guard from
a federal level. And I am really concerned about those
(05:11):
actions because the National Guard and the military more generally
are not meant to be directed by the federal government.
They're not meant to be used for law enforcement unless
we have some form of invasion or rebellion. That's not
happening in LA and it's certainly not happening in Colorado.
So I'm hopeful we can keep peaceful protests. I want
(05:32):
to see this litigation in California go forward. Given what
I know about the law, I think the federal government
has a very weak case, and I believe the judge
will rule that the calling off the National Guard was illegal.
And as for protesters, it's critical that people recognize on
their right to protest is only peaceful and as soon
as they break the law in any shape or form,
(05:54):
the matter what the protest is, they're engaging Crome activity,
they need to be held accountable.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
There's clarity there. But I do want to follow up
again for your legal purchase, because I did want to
ask you this. Does the President aside whether or not
he should or should not do this, but does he
have the legal authority to supersede a governor and estate
with the guard with calling in the Marines or does
he have to declare what is it the Insurrection Act
to do that? I mean, where does the law and
the power of the president sit versus a sitting governor,
(06:19):
and could he if you wanted to call up the
National Guard marines here in Colorado over assuming if governor
police would object to that.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yeah, you make a very important point. The governor controls
the national Guard. If the governor says, I want to
call it the national guard, or I want the president
to have a national guard at the president's disposal for
some enforcement issue of whatever kind it might be. That's
one thing that's not the case in California, And presumably
Governor Polls is not suggesting that here. What you put
(06:47):
your finger on is if the governor says no, what
just cations could exist? And the law is very clear
it has to be a rebellion, an active rebellion, It
has to be an active invasion that type of national emergency.
That's also the case of the Insurrection Act. It has
to be a justified national emergency. Isn't just something the
(07:07):
president can make about a thin era. And we challenge
in another case, the president's use of his tariff authority.
In that case, there's also the question of was there
an emergency that justified teriffs and there the president had
I would say better ad justications than the President had here.
But the President lost that case too. We won a
three zero decision, including one of the President Trump's appointees
(07:29):
ruling our way because there was no basis for the action,
and we live under a nation of laws, and it's
very important that the president not be above the law,
the president not be able to act outside the law.
Here with the National Guard, there is a legal framework.
It has to be followed. It wasn't filed in California,
and that's why I leave that case is going to
be successful.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Colorado Attorney General Phil Wiser, thank
Speaker 2 (07:50):
You, Thank you,
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.