5 ms·

This is an outrage. Only private companies like Google, Facebook, LexisNexis, Experian, Equifax, Corelogic, Nielsen, Acxiom, Datalogix, Epsilon, Spokeo, Radari

This is an outrage. Only private companies like Google, Facebook, LexisNexis, Experian, Equifax, Corelogic, Nielsen, Acxiom, Datalogix, Epsilon, Spokeo, Radaris, ID Analytics, eBureau, Intelius, PeekYou, Rapleaf, and Recorded Future should profit from information about me.

pcora 7y ago
What about Criteo?
akersten 7y ago
I get what you're saying, and broadly agree that data brokering is dirty and gross. But the government selling your data to the highest bidder is worse than a private firm doing it - because they have the significant advantage of being the source of truth of that data itself. Every other firm is likely needing to piece together the public data that's out there, or that they've gathered themselves, and package it up. The government can just sell the data out of its operational database and guarantee its accuracy. The incentives here are really grim. We need to tell the government that this is not ok. They might even then think of stopping private firms from doing the same.
- erentz 7y ago
  Importantly you also absolutely can’t avoid giving your data to the government. And if you try to lie and create a fake “DMV profile” for yourself to keep your data secure you’re gonna end up in serious trouble.
  - calvinmorrison 7y ago
    Because drivers licenses have very little the ability to pass a drivers test. Let's be honest.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  Also, google can't tell me that I'm not allowed to drive if I don't give them personal information. I can't just go to DuckDuckGo's DMV instead of giving my data to the government.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    But you may not be allowed to ride in their cars. Given the general sentiment of "people shouldn't be allowed to drive once L5 driving automation is implemented" on forums like this and even among the general public, not being allowed to ride in Google (or Uber's) cars could become a particularly big deal.
    - strbean 7y ago
      Even so, it is possible for DuckDuckGo to introduce privacy-respecting self driving car services. The point still stands that nobody, ever, will be able to provide a competitive, privacy respecting, competitor to the DMV.
      - falcolas 7y ago
        Here we go. Your "personal" data is (and has been for a long time) a public record, which is in practice available to anybody who wants to ask the government for it. https://www.dmv.org/public-records/ https://www.dmv.org/public-records/
        danShumway 7y ago
        Which, again, is even worse. Even Facebook is protecting my data better than the DMV. Even back-alley shady deals that share my data with undisclosed partners are preferable to literally allowing anyone who asks to have it. It's crazy how much information on ordinary people is considered public -- including voting information like party affiliation, which is just absurd to me. People shouldn't be able to just ask the government which party I'm registered with.
- rkagerer 7y ago
  They also have the unique ability to effectively compel you to provide that information. At least with private companies you have [the illusion of] of choice.
- sailfast 7y ago
  They're not selling your data to the highest bidder. It seems like they're selling it to people that appear to demonstrate a need for the data per their policies, and there is no bidding process, but rather a fee structure for all users. This is quite a bit different than providing to select groups after a winner-take-all scenario. This kind of information is available on most if not all property and business. I'm not sure why it would be different for automobiles? Public records are public. Would you feel better if this was provided for free to anyone vs. some sort of revenue-generator for the state? The last question is not rhetorical. I'm honestly not sure which one would be practically best, though data availability for free sounds like the best option to avoid corruption.
- amznthrowaway4 7y ago
  California allows the sale of some data for a specific enumerated set of uses (below). * Carrying out government agency functions, including courts and law enforcement. * Use in matters of motor vehicle safety, theft, emissions, product recalls. * Motor vehicle market research and surveys. * Legitimate business needs in transactions initiated by the individual to verify the accuracy of personal information. * Use in connection with a civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding. * Research activities and statistical reports, so long as the personal information is not redisclosed or used to contact individuals. * Insurance activities. Data brokers allow the sale of any data they have about me, for any purpose at all. The latter strikes me as worse, but I respect your right to be wrong and a moron.
  - dang 7y ago
    We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. Could you please not create accounts to do that with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jkingsbery 7y ago
The government is supposed to be governing. They're the referee. If a private entity does something that is illegal, the government can punish them. If the private entity does something that we agree ought to be illegal but isn't the government can change the laws. When the government does illegal/should-be-illegal things itself, you have an entity who's incentives are to not address the problem.

pcora 7y ago

What about Criteo?

akersten 7y ago

I get what you're saying, and broadly agree that data brokering is dirty and gross. But the government selling your data to the highest bidder is worse than a private firm doing it - because they have the significant advantage of being the source of truth of that data itself. Every other firm is likely needing to piece together the public data that's out there, or that they've gathered themselves, and package it up. The government can just sell the data out of its operational database and guarantee its accuracy. The incentives here are really grim. We need to tell the government that this is not ok. They might even then think of stopping private firms from doing the same.

erentz 7y ago
Importantly you also absolutely can’t avoid giving your data to the government. And if you try to lie and create a fake “DMV profile” for yourself to keep your data secure you’re gonna end up in serious trouble.
- calvinmorrison 7y ago
  Because drivers licenses have very little the ability to pass a drivers test. Let's be honest.
blotter_paper 7y ago
Also, google can't tell me that I'm not allowed to drive if I don't give them personal information. I can't just go to DuckDuckGo's DMV instead of giving my data to the government.
- falcolas 7y ago
  But you may not be allowed to ride in their cars. Given the general sentiment of "people shouldn't be allowed to drive once L5 driving automation is implemented" on forums like this and even among the general public, not being allowed to ride in Google (or Uber's) cars could become a particularly big deal.
  - strbean 7y ago
    Even so, it is possible for DuckDuckGo to introduce privacy-respecting self driving car services. The point still stands that nobody, ever, will be able to provide a competitive, privacy respecting, competitor to the DMV.
    - falcolas 7y ago
      Here we go. Your "personal" data is (and has been for a long time) a public record, which is in practice available to anybody who wants to ask the government for it. https://www.dmv.org/public-records/ https://www.dmv.org/public-records/
      - danShumway 7y ago
        Which, again, is even worse. Even Facebook is protecting my data better than the DMV. Even back-alley shady deals that share my data with undisclosed partners are preferable to literally allowing anyone who asks to have it. It's crazy how much information on ordinary people is considered public -- including voting information like party affiliation, which is just absurd to me. People shouldn't be able to just ask the government which party I'm registered with.
rkagerer 7y ago
They also have the unique ability to effectively compel you to provide that information. At least with private companies you have [the illusion of] of choice.
sailfast 7y ago
They're not selling your data to the highest bidder. It seems like they're selling it to people that appear to demonstrate a need for the data per their policies, and there is no bidding process, but rather a fee structure for all users. This is quite a bit different than providing to select groups after a winner-take-all scenario. This kind of information is available on most if not all property and business. I'm not sure why it would be different for automobiles? Public records are public. Would you feel better if this was provided for free to anyone vs. some sort of revenue-generator for the state? The last question is not rhetorical. I'm honestly not sure which one would be practically best, though data availability for free sounds like the best option to avoid corruption.
amznthrowaway4 7y ago
California allows the sale of some data for a specific enumerated set of uses (below). * Carrying out government agency functions, including courts and law enforcement. * Use in matters of motor vehicle safety, theft, emissions, product recalls. * Motor vehicle market research and surveys. * Legitimate business needs in transactions initiated by the individual to verify the accuracy of personal information. * Use in connection with a civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding. * Research activities and statistical reports, so long as the personal information is not redisclosed or used to contact individuals. * Insurance activities. Data brokers allow the sale of any data they have about me, for any purpose at all. The latter strikes me as worse, but I respect your right to be wrong and a moron.
- dang 7y ago
  We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. Could you please not create accounts to do that with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jkingsbery 7y ago

The government is supposed to be governing. They're the referee. If a private entity does something that is illegal, the government can punish them. If the private entity does something that we agree ought to be illegal but isn't the government can change the laws. When the government does illegal/should-be-illegal things itself, you have an entity who's incentives are to not address the problem.