4 ms·

Save you a click: the secret weapon is paying a criminal on a Telegram group $15 to dox someone. The article is mostly about where the doxxing services are gett

Save you a click: the secret weapon is paying a criminal on a Telegram group $15 to dox someone. The article is mostly about where the doxxing services are getting their data, which changes. TransUnion's TLOxp is a popular service right now.

nbaugh1 3y ago
Wait, you mean the data that any random company can access when I apply for a credit card or job is also available to other people with money but don't care if I agree to it first?
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  The article says that people pretend to be private investigators and the data companies don't confirm except 'remotely'.
  - alasdair_ 3y ago
    Why should private investigators be allowed this information at all? As the name implies they are private individuals.
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      From the article... TU (and the other credit bureaus) decided your PII can be sold without much regulation. Despite laws that require credit reports to have tighter controls. They just say "it's not a credit report; it's just PII" and poof they're magically in the clear.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      Because PIs are nominally regulated. It's a popular career with ex-cops who have investigative skills but are over the physical danger aspect of dealing with crime.
      - technick 3y ago
        Anyone can become a PI in Colorado with just some business cards.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      File a complaint with the FTC and CFPB. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/remarks-of-cfpb-director-rohit-chopra-at-white-house-roundtable-on-protecting-americans-from-harmful-data-broker-practices/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/remarks-of... https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-consumer-financial-protection-6180401/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-consumer-financial-pro... https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/we-are-extending-the-deadline-for-comments-about-data-brokers/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/we-are-extendi...
    - sidewndr46 3y ago
      How else are credit bureaus going to make money other than selling this data?
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        Please tell me this is sarcasm
        sidewndr46 3y ago
        No, it is a real question. There is a consistent thread of bureaus selling to criminals. It's part of their revenue stream at this point. Doing anything that involved cutting back on this would threaten their profits.
  - godelski 3y ago
    I'm pretty confident that the parent is using sarcasm and fake surprise to illustrate how the point should be rather obvious that just any old person can get a credit report on another person because in reality the credit companies wouldn't have the capacity to validate the credentials of someone requesting the data without creating other significant disturbances such as making it nearly impossible to start a company. But this feels like a lot more words and doesn't actually convey as much as what you get when you have to internalize the rhetoric. Honest question, is sarcasm dead?
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      In text sarcasm generally works best when it is either appropriate for the setting or it is blatantly obvious. If one employs it otherwise then being treated seriously should be expected. When in doubt many will opt to treat it as genuine since reacting to a serious comment as if it were sarcasm comes across as condescending.
      - godelski 3y ago
        > or it is blatantly obvious It falls under this case. First, we notice the comment isn't an actual question, as there is nothing to actually be answered. This is a clear indication that its usage is therefore that of rhetoric. This is likely why they didn't respond, as there was nothing informative you could say unless you are significantly updating the premise which is being mocked. Second, the diction and pattern of the sentence matches a commonly user sarcastic pattern of "wait, you're saying x but y?!" and the only thing missing is a surprised pikachu gif. It even does this at an abstracted level as it emphasizes the arbitrariness of the entity requesting the information. The pattern is up there with "I have a modest proposal" and I am having difficulties in even coming up with a more prominent pattern. There are several prominent memes built off of this. Third, it involves additional flare to indicate a mocking of the obviousness of the claim made by the article which is summed by the parent. The comment is quite pejorative, with a clear disdain for the lack of accountability of the credit agencies. As far as sarcastic comments go, this is about as blatant as one can get. Even my sarcastic addendum ("Is sarcasm dead?") is less obvious than the comment. Similarly the sarcasm you are employing is far less obvious. But none necessitate vocal inflections. I think your detector is defunct and you may wish to take it in for repairs or an upgrade. I also disagree with your interpretation of when sarcasm works and I would suggest a different strategy. Your strategy will have a high false positive rate and teach you to misidentify sarcasm rather than learn to identify it. If a comment appears reactionary and condescending without a abundantly clear question to answer, either assume sarcasm or bad faith. In the latter case, one should not engage as you're only encouraging hostility. Simply downvote and move on. If you are wrong, you have just downvoted a sarcastic comment (which may not be adding too much to the conversation, as is the case here), which also sends a signal to the user that they need to work on their sarcasm or save it for other forums. You can take a middle case and hedge by saying "I think this is sarcasm, but if not..." This also goes with a different strategy of not responding if you don't have much to contribute. If you don't have a clear question to answer then the only reasonable responses are to ignore or ask for clarification, least you just create more noise. Internet conversations are well known to degrade easily and quickly. We also should mention satire, as it is often employed. Satire's foundation is that of an alternative interpretation. The simple metric here is "would a reasonable person state this?" If there is any doubt to this, I suggest reading this document which describes the definition of satire while also making heavy use of it[0]. I mention that my addendum employs sarcasm, through exaggeration, but there is some real question to it, as lately I have seen severe identification even with the use of "modest proposals." Language itself is compression and if one is to take a literal interpretation of everything then you will be unable to accurately communicate and are likely to frequently enrage and annoy others. Due to the compressive nature, you will always be required to "read between the lines" otherwise even this sentence would be uninterpretable. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
    As a European citizen, I love GDPR.
adolph 3y ago
https://www.tlo.com/about-us https://www.tlo.com/about-us TLOxp is the latest version of the game-changing technology that ushered in the science of data fusion Who Uses TLOxp Collections TLOxp for Legal Professionals General Counsel TLOxp for Licensed Investigators Financial Services TLOxp for Insurance Corporate Risk Investigative Reporters TLOxp for Law Enforcement State, Local, and Federal Government Asset Recovery and Repossession
bonestamp2 3y ago
Some of the "people finder" type websites have most of the data they mentioned for free. I assume they source it from the credit bureaus because it had the same mistakes that I sometimes get asked to confirm when a financial institution is trying to verify my identity. It's good to google yourself a couple times/year and file a request for those sites to remove you. Most of them do it fairly quickly.
- kanary 3y ago
  If you want to be more aggressive, you can pay a service like Kanary that Googles you, submits removal requests, and then does a deeper search across data brokers and people search sites and submits removal requests as well. It's unfortunate, but useful if keeping your info off these sites is important for safety/security. We're advocating for the CFPB to tighten regulation so this isn't such a challenge for people (and companies). If interested in the technical challenges of scaling this, we're also hiring.
  - bonestamp2 3y ago
    Cool service and I hope you do well. Feedback: it's a little expensive for me. I'd pay about $50/year for a scan every 3 months. I know you want the ARR but I'd also pay $15/scan. Then you could have an opt-in reminder option to remind me again in 1/2/3/4/5/6/etc months.
    - kanary 3y ago
      good feedback ty - we'd like to test a lower cost tier. This is very helpful and common feedback from folks who don't need as intense support as our earliest adopters.
  - IntToDouble 3y ago
    +1 for Kanary. The amount of time/effort/rage that goes into dealing with a stolen identity makes paying for this a no-brainer.
    - 3y ago
ajhurliman 3y ago
I feel like this is a dismissive response to the article, as if there were some sort of “gotcha” clickbait going on. I perceive it to have delivered exactly what the headline promised: Doxxing (and worse) for sale using lightly regulated lookup tools provided by credit bureaus. Was there something that diminutives these claims?
- NelsonMinar 3y ago
  My post was a dismissive response to the clickbait headline, and thus the Hacker News topic name. I liked the article.

nbaugh1 3y ago

Wait, you mean the data that any random company can access when I apply for a credit card or job is also available to other people with money but don't care if I agree to it first?

Eisenstein 3y ago
The article says that people pretend to be private investigators and the data companies don't confirm except 'remotely'.
- alasdair_ 3y ago
  Why should private investigators be allowed this information at all? As the name implies they are private individuals.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    From the article... TU (and the other credit bureaus) decided your PII can be sold without much regulation. Despite laws that require credit reports to have tighter controls. They just say "it's not a credit report; it's just PII" and poof they're magically in the clear.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Because PIs are nominally regulated. It's a popular career with ex-cops who have investigative skills but are over the physical danger aspect of dealing with crime.
    - technick 3y ago
      Anyone can become a PI in Colorado with just some business cards.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    File a complaint with the FTC and CFPB. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/remarks-of-cfpb-director-rohit-chopra-at-white-house-roundtable-on-protecting-americans-from-harmful-data-broker-practices/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/remarks-of... https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-consumer-financial-protection-6180401/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-consumer-financial-pro... https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/we-are-extending-the-deadline-for-comments-about-data-brokers/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/we-are-extendi...
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    How else are credit bureaus going to make money other than selling this data?
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      Please tell me this is sarcasm
      - sidewndr46 3y ago
        No, it is a real question. There is a consistent thread of bureaus selling to criminals. It's part of their revenue stream at this point. Doing anything that involved cutting back on this would threaten their profits.
- godelski 3y ago
  I'm pretty confident that the parent is using sarcasm and fake surprise to illustrate how the point should be rather obvious that just any old person can get a credit report on another person because in reality the credit companies wouldn't have the capacity to validate the credentials of someone requesting the data without creating other significant disturbances such as making it nearly impossible to start a company. But this feels like a lot more words and doesn't actually convey as much as what you get when you have to internalize the rhetoric. Honest question, is sarcasm dead?
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    In text sarcasm generally works best when it is either appropriate for the setting or it is blatantly obvious. If one employs it otherwise then being treated seriously should be expected. When in doubt many will opt to treat it as genuine since reacting to a serious comment as if it were sarcasm comes across as condescending.
    - godelski 3y ago
      > or it is blatantly obvious It falls under this case. First, we notice the comment isn't an actual question, as there is nothing to actually be answered. This is a clear indication that its usage is therefore that of rhetoric. This is likely why they didn't respond, as there was nothing informative you could say unless you are significantly updating the premise which is being mocked. Second, the diction and pattern of the sentence matches a commonly user sarcastic pattern of "wait, you're saying x but y?!" and the only thing missing is a surprised pikachu gif. It even does this at an abstracted level as it emphasizes the arbitrariness of the entity requesting the information. The pattern is up there with "I have a modest proposal" and I am having difficulties in even coming up with a more prominent pattern. There are several prominent memes built off of this. Third, it involves additional flare to indicate a mocking of the obviousness of the claim made by the article which is summed by the parent. The comment is quite pejorative, with a clear disdain for the lack of accountability of the credit agencies. As far as sarcastic comments go, this is about as blatant as one can get. Even my sarcastic addendum ("Is sarcasm dead?") is less obvious than the comment. Similarly the sarcasm you are employing is far less obvious. But none necessitate vocal inflections. I think your detector is defunct and you may wish to take it in for repairs or an upgrade. I also disagree with your interpretation of when sarcasm works and I would suggest a different strategy. Your strategy will have a high false positive rate and teach you to misidentify sarcasm rather than learn to identify it. If a comment appears reactionary and condescending without a abundantly clear question to answer, either assume sarcasm or bad faith. In the latter case, one should not engage as you're only encouraging hostility. Simply downvote and move on. If you are wrong, you have just downvoted a sarcastic comment (which may not be adding too much to the conversation, as is the case here), which also sends a signal to the user that they need to work on their sarcasm or save it for other forums. You can take a middle case and hedge by saying "I think this is sarcasm, but if not..." This also goes with a different strategy of not responding if you don't have much to contribute. If you don't have a clear question to answer then the only reasonable responses are to ignore or ask for clarification, least you just create more noise. Internet conversations are well known to degrade easily and quickly. We also should mention satire, as it is often employed. Satire's foundation is that of an alternative interpretation. The simple metric here is "would a reasonable person state this?" If there is any doubt to this, I suggest reading this document which describes the definition of satire while also making heavy use of it[0]. I mention that my addendum employs sarcasm, through exaggeration, but there is some real question to it, as lately I have seen severe identification even with the use of "modest proposals." Language itself is compression and if one is to take a literal interpretation of everything then you will be unable to accurately communicate and are likely to frequently enrage and annoy others. Due to the compressive nature, you will always be required to "read between the lines" otherwise even this sentence would be uninterpretable. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  As a European citizen, I love GDPR.

adolph 3y ago

https://www.tlo.com/about-us https://www.tlo.com/about-us TLOxp is the latest version of the game-changing technology that ushered in the science of data fusion Who Uses TLOxp Collections TLOxp for Legal Professionals General Counsel TLOxp for Licensed Investigators Financial Services TLOxp for Insurance Corporate Risk Investigative Reporters TLOxp for Law Enforcement State, Local, and Federal Government Asset Recovery and Repossession

bonestamp2 3y ago

Some of the "people finder" type websites have most of the data they mentioned for free. I assume they source it from the credit bureaus because it had the same mistakes that I sometimes get asked to confirm when a financial institution is trying to verify my identity. It's good to google yourself a couple times/year and file a request for those sites to remove you. Most of them do it fairly quickly.

kanary 3y ago
If you want to be more aggressive, you can pay a service like Kanary that Googles you, submits removal requests, and then does a deeper search across data brokers and people search sites and submits removal requests as well. It's unfortunate, but useful if keeping your info off these sites is important for safety/security. We're advocating for the CFPB to tighten regulation so this isn't such a challenge for people (and companies). If interested in the technical challenges of scaling this, we're also hiring.
- bonestamp2 3y ago
  Cool service and I hope you do well. Feedback: it's a little expensive for me. I'd pay about $50/year for a scan every 3 months. I know you want the ARR but I'd also pay $15/scan. Then you could have an opt-in reminder option to remind me again in 1/2/3/4/5/6/etc months.
  - kanary 3y ago
    good feedback ty - we'd like to test a lower cost tier. This is very helpful and common feedback from folks who don't need as intense support as our earliest adopters.
- IntToDouble 3y ago
  +1 for Kanary. The amount of time/effort/rage that goes into dealing with a stolen identity makes paying for this a no-brainer.
  - 3y ago

ajhurliman 3y ago

I feel like this is a dismissive response to the article, as if there were some sort of “gotcha” clickbait going on. I perceive it to have delivered exactly what the headline promised: Doxxing (and worse) for sale using lightly regulated lookup tools provided by credit bureaus. Was there something that diminutives these claims?

NelsonMinar 3y ago
My post was a dismissive response to the clickbait headline, and thus the Hacker News topic name. I liked the article.