3 ms·

> reminder that people are involuntarily tracked by credit agencies and all manner of other actors That's a gross misunderstanding of how CRAs function. You e

> reminder that people are involuntarily tracked by credit agencies and all manner of other actors That's a gross misunderstanding of how CRAs function. You explicitly give permission for whatever businesses you interact with to forward your credit info to a CRA, and you explicitly give permission for them to reference the data held by CRAs.

SauciestGNU 9y ago
If I want to have power or water or heat in my residence, hell if I want to have a residence at all, I have to do business with an entity that will report me to a credit agency. When the alternative is homelessness, dropping out of society, or dying of exposure then no, that is absolutely and emphatically not voluntary. Additionally, other actors that collect information about me without my permission are advertisement and social media companies.
- g051051 9y ago
  That is the choice made by the company you're doing business with, not the CRA. It's up to them whether or not they feel the need to use CRA info. > other actors that collect information about me without my permission are advertisement and social media companies. So those notices from web sites about cookie tracking, or the Terms of Use from social media companies, aren't enough to warn you about information collection? They can't collect it if you don't visit their (or affiliate) sites. It may have been true in the past, but nowadays pretty much any reputable company has explicit terms and policies related to collection and use of personal data, and you have agreed to those policies by using their services. And non-reputable companies wouldn't care what you wanted one way or another.
  - SauciestGNU 9y ago
    >That is the choice made by the company you're doing business with, not the CRA. It's up to them whether or not they feel the need to use CRA info. This is true, but the CRA is the beneficiary of this behavior and I would be surprised if they don't encourage it. But yes, the CRAs are not solely responsible. They just benefit from the widespread practice of making housing availability contingent on credit score. >So those notices from web sites about cookie tracking, or the Terms of Use from social media companies, aren't enough to warn you about information collection? They can't collect it if you don't visit their (or affiliate) sites. I don't use social media (aside from here and Reddit). That doesn't stop Facebook et al from placing tracking beacons all around the web and building shadow profiles on people. Regarding the cookie notices, by the time one has been displayed you've already landed on the site that uses them so it's presumably too late to avoid. I go to great lengths to not be tracked. I generally browse without js enabled, I block ads and third party tracking requests. I do my best to not consent to bring surveiled. But should not these things be opt-in rather than "desperately struggle and still probably fail to opt out"?
    - g051051 9y ago
      > That doesn't stop Facebook et al from placing tracking beacons all around the web and building shadow profiles on people. All done through agreements with the sites you do visit and which spell it out in their ToS. > I go to great lengths to not be tracked. I generally browse without js enabled, I block ads and third party tracking requests. I do my best to not consent to bring surveiled. So do I. I have 3 ad blockers on my browser and use a custom hosts file to deny as much of this stuff at the network level as possible. > But should not these things be opt-in rather than "desperately struggle and still probably fail to opt out"? I agree with this 100%.
      - SauciestGNU 9y ago
        My one nit: >All done through agreements with the sites you do visit and which spell it out in their ToS. By the time I visit their ToS, more often than not I've landed on the page with tracking beacons and the damage is done.
        52-6F-62 9y ago
        I wouldn't call that a nitpick. It's a glaring Catch 22.

SauciestGNU 9y ago

If I want to have power or water or heat in my residence, hell if I want to have a residence at all, I have to do business with an entity that will report me to a credit agency. When the alternative is homelessness, dropping out of society, or dying of exposure then no, that is absolutely and emphatically not voluntary. Additionally, other actors that collect information about me without my permission are advertisement and social media companies.

g051051 9y ago
That is the choice made by the company you're doing business with, not the CRA. It's up to them whether or not they feel the need to use CRA info. > other actors that collect information about me without my permission are advertisement and social media companies. So those notices from web sites about cookie tracking, or the Terms of Use from social media companies, aren't enough to warn you about information collection? They can't collect it if you don't visit their (or affiliate) sites. It may have been true in the past, but nowadays pretty much any reputable company has explicit terms and policies related to collection and use of personal data, and you have agreed to those policies by using their services. And non-reputable companies wouldn't care what you wanted one way or another.
- SauciestGNU 9y ago
  >That is the choice made by the company you're doing business with, not the CRA. It's up to them whether or not they feel the need to use CRA info. This is true, but the CRA is the beneficiary of this behavior and I would be surprised if they don't encourage it. But yes, the CRAs are not solely responsible. They just benefit from the widespread practice of making housing availability contingent on credit score. >So those notices from web sites about cookie tracking, or the Terms of Use from social media companies, aren't enough to warn you about information collection? They can't collect it if you don't visit their (or affiliate) sites. I don't use social media (aside from here and Reddit). That doesn't stop Facebook et al from placing tracking beacons all around the web and building shadow profiles on people. Regarding the cookie notices, by the time one has been displayed you've already landed on the site that uses them so it's presumably too late to avoid. I go to great lengths to not be tracked. I generally browse without js enabled, I block ads and third party tracking requests. I do my best to not consent to bring surveiled. But should not these things be opt-in rather than "desperately struggle and still probably fail to opt out"?
  - g051051 9y ago
    > That doesn't stop Facebook et al from placing tracking beacons all around the web and building shadow profiles on people. All done through agreements with the sites you do visit and which spell it out in their ToS. > I go to great lengths to not be tracked. I generally browse without js enabled, I block ads and third party tracking requests. I do my best to not consent to bring surveiled. So do I. I have 3 ad blockers on my browser and use a custom hosts file to deny as much of this stuff at the network level as possible. > But should not these things be opt-in rather than "desperately struggle and still probably fail to opt out"? I agree with this 100%.
    - SauciestGNU 9y ago
      My one nit: >All done through agreements with the sites you do visit and which spell it out in their ToS. By the time I visit their ToS, more often than not I've landed on the page with tracking beacons and the damage is done.
      - 52-6F-62 9y ago
        I wouldn't call that a nitpick. It's a glaring Catch 22.