4 ms·

My opinion is that information about you should belong to you. Other entities should not be allowed to keep or trade information about individuals without payin

My opinion is that information about you should belong to you. Other entities should not be allowed to keep or trade information about individuals without paying them directly. That way people will realise that their personal info is worth something.

mjevans 9y ago
The problem is this is effectively a reputation score; only you have very limited rights to see it* (once a year, per agency; and only if you ask... Oh and BTW, I pulled /all/ of mine just before it came out that the breach happened; :( ) Also a problem; they use simple knowledge of a single magic number as authentication ('identification'). The three current companies in the US could have gotten together and worked around the lack of a national ID and created a private SIN cryptographic... but that would cut in to their profits. Though I hear other countries that have done this also have issues with 'business individuals' being contacted and scam attempts rampantly abusing their data...
will_hughes 9y ago
> Other entities should not be allowed to keep or trade information about individuals without paying them directly. To be the devils advocate for a moment, what about the other side of that? Should businesses not be able to keep and share records saying "This person owes us money but refuses to pay"?
- razakel 9y ago
  >Should businesses not be able to keep and share records saying "This person owes us money but refuses to pay"? No, because you would have practically no recourse if you were wrongly on such a list, and might not be able to prove you even were on it or that it exists. It's called "blacklisting". You have a common name and share a birthday with a felon? Say goodbye to your chances of getting a credit card!
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    The biggest issue there is for screening for guns and some employment screening. If you’re name is John Smith, good luck!
  - astura 9y ago
    That's not how credit reporting laws work the United States. It's true that they could/should be stronger/tightened/held to a higher standard, but there is a process to dispute your credit file. Creditors are legally required to give you certain information when they deny you for credit.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      That is not how the credit reporting laws work, but it's how the system works. That process is extremely flawed and unreliable. Have you ever tried disputing your credit? good fucking luck. I've been arguing with Equifax for over a year because they "have it on record" that I lived somewhere that I've never lived. I have no legal recourse unless I want to spend thousands of dollars on lawyer fees.
      - bdhess 9y ago
        You shouldn't need a lawyer to pursue them. Assuming you're within the time periods prescribed in the FCRA, you can file your own complaint in your local small claims court. Before that, I'd send them a letter clearly marked "Notice of Intent to Sue" (on the letter and envelope) stating what information is incorrect, and that you plan to file a suit in [insert name of small claims court] on [insert reasonable date] seeking $1,000 in damages for each violation per 15 USC 1681(n), unless the disputed information is removed before that date. And enclose any supporting documentation, and history of previous fruitless correspondence. IANAL, but this has worked for me before with the credit bureaus, and I've never actually had to file the threatened suit. My best guess is that threatening litigation gets the case assigned to a legal team that is actually empowered to correct errors. It's a shame that that's how they've chosen to run their business, but then again, I'm not their customer, I'm their product.
astura 9y ago
HN is all like "speech should be free and unlimited and protected always... Unless someone's talking about me." That sort of hard stance seems extremely unworkable. If I sign up for Hulu they need my email and billing information at the least. So they are supposed to pay me now because I gave them that to get a service? So then ot evens out so my streaming is free now? Goodbye any useful paid service. Goodbye any free service. What you're really advocating here though is abolishing free society as we know it. You think I'm kidding? All court proceeding would have to be in secret and unrecorded as saying "so and so convicted of manslaughter" is now illegal. All public records abolished entirely, no accountability anymore. No journalists could publish a story about anyone ever. Harvey Weinstein sexually assaults hundreds of women? Can't tell anyone or publish that information, Harvey Weinstein owns it. Even telling someone else about your date last night would become illegal.
- thatcat 9y ago
  I think gp ment commercial data, with the aim to prevent the resale rather than collection.
  - cinquemb 9y ago
    Though, it would seem like data in general is more commercializable now than it was a century ago. I certainly don't want to be the person to have to draw a line in the sand between "non commercial data" and "commercial data". Then again, maybe I want to sell access to brain scans of people using hardware I made to a 3rd Party in the future… :P
    - thatcat 9y ago
      Its not any harder than labeling things for tax purposes. If you sell it, it is commercial and should have restrictions on how it's held and transmitted. It's not unreasonable to require part of that process to involve payment to the data originator, as a royalty for the unique data they created. This would also allow those creating the data an easy way to see how it is ultimately used.

mjevans 9y ago

The problem is this is effectively a reputation score; only you have very limited rights to see it* (once a year, per agency; and only if you ask... Oh and BTW, I pulled /all/ of mine just before it came out that the breach happened; :( ) Also a problem; they use simple knowledge of a single magic number as authentication ('identification'). The three current companies in the US could have gotten together and worked around the lack of a national ID and created a private SIN cryptographic... but that would cut in to their profits. Though I hear other countries that have done this also have issues with 'business individuals' being contacted and scam attempts rampantly abusing their data...

will_hughes 9y ago

> Other entities should not be allowed to keep or trade information about individuals without paying them directly. To be the devils advocate for a moment, what about the other side of that? Should businesses not be able to keep and share records saying "This person owes us money but refuses to pay"?

razakel 9y ago
>Should businesses not be able to keep and share records saying "This person owes us money but refuses to pay"? No, because you would have practically no recourse if you were wrongly on such a list, and might not be able to prove you even were on it or that it exists. It's called "blacklisting". You have a common name and share a birthday with a felon? Say goodbye to your chances of getting a credit card!
- Spooky23 9y ago
  The biggest issue there is for screening for guns and some employment screening. If you’re name is John Smith, good luck!
- astura 9y ago
  That's not how credit reporting laws work the United States. It's true that they could/should be stronger/tightened/held to a higher standard, but there is a process to dispute your credit file. Creditors are legally required to give you certain information when they deny you for credit.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    That is not how the credit reporting laws work, but it's how the system works. That process is extremely flawed and unreliable. Have you ever tried disputing your credit? good fucking luck. I've been arguing with Equifax for over a year because they "have it on record" that I lived somewhere that I've never lived. I have no legal recourse unless I want to spend thousands of dollars on lawyer fees.
    - bdhess 9y ago
      You shouldn't need a lawyer to pursue them. Assuming you're within the time periods prescribed in the FCRA, you can file your own complaint in your local small claims court. Before that, I'd send them a letter clearly marked "Notice of Intent to Sue" (on the letter and envelope) stating what information is incorrect, and that you plan to file a suit in [insert name of small claims court] on [insert reasonable date] seeking $1,000 in damages for each violation per 15 USC 1681(n), unless the disputed information is removed before that date. And enclose any supporting documentation, and history of previous fruitless correspondence. IANAL, but this has worked for me before with the credit bureaus, and I've never actually had to file the threatened suit. My best guess is that threatening litigation gets the case assigned to a legal team that is actually empowered to correct errors. It's a shame that that's how they've chosen to run their business, but then again, I'm not their customer, I'm their product.

astura 9y ago

HN is all like "speech should be free and unlimited and protected always... Unless someone's talking about me." That sort of hard stance seems extremely unworkable. If I sign up for Hulu they need my email and billing information at the least. So they are supposed to pay me now because I gave them that to get a service? So then ot evens out so my streaming is free now? Goodbye any useful paid service. Goodbye any free service. What you're really advocating here though is abolishing free society as we know it. You think I'm kidding? All court proceeding would have to be in secret and unrecorded as saying "so and so convicted of manslaughter" is now illegal. All public records abolished entirely, no accountability anymore. No journalists could publish a story about anyone ever. Harvey Weinstein sexually assaults hundreds of women? Can't tell anyone or publish that information, Harvey Weinstein owns it. Even telling someone else about your date last night would become illegal.

thatcat 9y ago
I think gp ment commercial data, with the aim to prevent the resale rather than collection.
- cinquemb 9y ago
  Though, it would seem like data in general is more commercializable now than it was a century ago. I certainly don't want to be the person to have to draw a line in the sand between "non commercial data" and "commercial data". Then again, maybe I want to sell access to brain scans of people using hardware I made to a 3rd Party in the future… :P
  - thatcat 9y ago
    Its not any harder than labeling things for tax purposes. If you sell it, it is commercial and should have restrictions on how it's held and transmitted. It's not unreasonable to require part of that process to involve payment to the data originator, as a royalty for the unique data they created. This would also allow those creating the data an easy way to see how it is ultimately used.