5 ms·

I heard this on NPR and I appreciate the avenue by which the red flag is being raised, but it bothers the shit out of me, because EVERYONE'S personal data is be

I heard this on NPR and I appreciate the avenue by which the red flag is being raised, but it bothers the shit out of me, because EVERYONE'S personal data is being sold by online brokers. The implication that their data is more important or something just seems like a ploy to get more eyeballs on the research.

_yo2u 3y ago
Sometimes that is all that is needed to move the needle. Tik tok almost moved it but that just made certain swaths of the political spectrum ask for a direct ban (with other downsides eg. 1st amendment concerns) instead of overarching policy reform. "Policymakers should consider the following steps: Congress should pass a comprehensive U.S. privacy law, with strong controls on the data brokerage ecosystem. The most effective step to prevent harms from data brokerage for all Americans would be a strong, comprehensive privacy law."
- permo-w 3y ago
  if you don't just ban it, you get the whole GDPR consent banner issue. what is the downside of banning it? it's not like businesses couldn't manage advertising before the internet was around
kube-system 3y ago
More specific statements can be more impactful to the listener. "Everyone's car is getting stolen these days" ... "Yeah, isn't that crazy? What are ya gonna do?" "Your car is getting stolen right now" ... "Wait, what!?!?" I think people really just write off the scale and scope of data privacy in this country as "yeah, sounds bad, but since it's happening to everyone there's nothing I can do about it"
QuarterReptile 3y ago
Yeah, I thought this was about the sale of data that had been collected by the military on a compulsory basis; this article is not news. I clicked through because I wanted to see whether the data was health info or OPM breach data.
akira2501 3y ago
Service members are uniquely vulnerable. They are employed by the government which makes them a target of hostile foreign powers, and they're often ordered to give away their personal information while in service often out of habit and not out any genuine need to have the service members SSN.
- swells34 3y ago
  All very correct, and to add to this as someone who's had direct consequences due to my information being sold: we have more sensitive personal information, and that information is more sensitive than that of an average civilian. The holy Grail of documents is the DD-214, which has every single piece of sensitive personal information a civilian has, all in one place, and we are REQUIRED to keep it indefinitely, to present it under a large number of circumstances. It's a complete identity package; full name, signature, photo, work history, residence history, dates, personal description, mother's maiden name, date of birth, location of birth, name of birth hospital and doctor. Then there's security clearance paperwork, which may be even worse, extensive un-redacted medical records, etc. All of these documents are viewed hundreds of times by hundreds of people during a military career, scanned, photocopied, emailed, printed, all without any sort of authorization or even knowledge by the service member. It's legitimately scary. And then after you're out, all of this information is managed by the VA by people who have nearly unrestricted access to it, and in my case along with thousands of others, put on a thumb drive and taken home and sold to a broker. It's a life ruiner.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    You mean SF-86, not DD-214
  - moandcompany 3y ago
    The SF-86 used in the US security clearance background investigation process is very personal information dense... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Form_86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Form_86 The OPM data breach (2015) affected service members, civilian government employees, and other civilians - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...
RajT88 3y ago
> The implication that their data is more important or something just seems like a ploy to get more eyeballs on the research. If I had to guess at a motivation, it's jockeying for reasons for congress to care about data privacy issues. I am sure some enterprising person is going to purchase all the data on members of congress and release it at some point.
maximinus_thrax 3y ago
> The implication that their data is more important or something just seems like a ploy to get more eyeballs on the research. So? Their data IS more important from a national security perspective, as the study suggests. If you handle nukes, your personal information would probably be more valuable than the data of someone flipping burgers at McD. If this framing - 'the data brokerage industry is in itself a threat to national security' - forces congress to better regulate the industry, I think it is a win even if the regulations will only target military folks. It's a foot-in-the-door and objectively a good thing for the US national security.
- warner25 3y ago
  Yes, the most troubling "red team" ideas are about attacking service members in their personal lives at home. Rather than attacking our nuclear bombers, submarines, and ICBMs, an adversary could target the people who operate and maintain those things, or their families, in their personal financial lives and neighborhoods where they are soft targets and reliant on law enforcement for protection.
localplume 3y ago
[dead]
dfxm12 3y ago
I'm not sure they are implying their data is more important. FWIW, the research claims: Most of the previous research on data brokers and national security focuses on data about all U.S. persons, rather than focusing on servicemembers as we do in this report. Research in both categories is described here. Also, I think of note is that Military personnel are unique in that they are banned from using tiktok, at least right now, as of recently. This research, combined with earlier and future research might be able to determine what kind of effect this ban has on data collection/data brokers. I also think it is unique in that the US government is the employer of military personnel, so if they take any action related to protecting their employee data from brokers or from selling, maybe this can be a model for all US citizens, or at least for other employers.
- warner25 3y ago
  To my knowledge, I'm not banned from using TikTok as a US military service member. The ban is about using it on government furnished equipment / devices / networks.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

_yo2u 3y ago

Sometimes that is all that is needed to move the needle. Tik tok almost moved it but that just made certain swaths of the political spectrum ask for a direct ban (with other downsides eg. 1st amendment concerns) instead of overarching policy reform. "Policymakers should consider the following steps: Congress should pass a comprehensive U.S. privacy law, with strong controls on the data brokerage ecosystem. The most effective step to prevent harms from data brokerage for all Americans would be a strong, comprehensive privacy law."

permo-w 3y ago
if you don't just ban it, you get the whole GDPR consent banner issue. what is the downside of banning it? it's not like businesses couldn't manage advertising before the internet was around

kube-system 3y ago

More specific statements can be more impactful to the listener. "Everyone's car is getting stolen these days" ... "Yeah, isn't that crazy? What are ya gonna do?" "Your car is getting stolen right now" ... "Wait, what!?!?" I think people really just write off the scale and scope of data privacy in this country as "yeah, sounds bad, but since it's happening to everyone there's nothing I can do about it"

QuarterReptile 3y ago

Yeah, I thought this was about the sale of data that had been collected by the military on a compulsory basis; this article is not news. I clicked through because I wanted to see whether the data was health info or OPM breach data.

akira2501 3y ago

Service members are uniquely vulnerable. They are employed by the government which makes them a target of hostile foreign powers, and they're often ordered to give away their personal information while in service often out of habit and not out any genuine need to have the service members SSN.

swells34 3y ago
All very correct, and to add to this as someone who's had direct consequences due to my information being sold: we have more sensitive personal information, and that information is more sensitive than that of an average civilian. The holy Grail of documents is the DD-214, which has every single piece of sensitive personal information a civilian has, all in one place, and we are REQUIRED to keep it indefinitely, to present it under a large number of circumstances. It's a complete identity package; full name, signature, photo, work history, residence history, dates, personal description, mother's maiden name, date of birth, location of birth, name of birth hospital and doctor. Then there's security clearance paperwork, which may be even worse, extensive un-redacted medical records, etc. All of these documents are viewed hundreds of times by hundreds of people during a military career, scanned, photocopied, emailed, printed, all without any sort of authorization or even knowledge by the service member. It's legitimately scary. And then after you're out, all of this information is managed by the VA by people who have nearly unrestricted access to it, and in my case along with thousands of others, put on a thumb drive and taken home and sold to a broker. It's a life ruiner.
- 23B1 3y ago
  You mean SF-86, not DD-214
- moandcompany 3y ago
  The SF-86 used in the US security clearance background investigation process is very personal information dense... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Form_86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Form_86 The OPM data breach (2015) affected service members, civilian government employees, and other civilians - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...

RajT88 3y ago

> The implication that their data is more important or something just seems like a ploy to get more eyeballs on the research. If I had to guess at a motivation, it's jockeying for reasons for congress to care about data privacy issues. I am sure some enterprising person is going to purchase all the data on members of congress and release it at some point.

maximinus_thrax 3y ago

> The implication that their data is more important or something just seems like a ploy to get more eyeballs on the research. So? Their data IS more important from a national security perspective, as the study suggests. If you handle nukes, your personal information would probably be more valuable than the data of someone flipping burgers at McD. If this framing - 'the data brokerage industry is in itself a threat to national security' - forces congress to better regulate the industry, I think it is a win even if the regulations will only target military folks. It's a foot-in-the-door and objectively a good thing for the US national security.

warner25 3y ago
Yes, the most troubling "red team" ideas are about attacking service members in their personal lives at home. Rather than attacking our nuclear bombers, submarines, and ICBMs, an adversary could target the people who operate and maintain those things, or their families, in their personal financial lives and neighborhoods where they are soft targets and reliant on law enforcement for protection.

localplume 3y ago

[dead]

dfxm12 3y ago

I'm not sure they are implying their data is more important. FWIW, the research claims: Most of the previous research on data brokers and national security focuses on data about all U.S. persons, rather than focusing on servicemembers as we do in this report. Research in both categories is described here. Also, I think of note is that Military personnel are unique in that they are banned from using tiktok, at least right now, as of recently. This research, combined with earlier and future research might be able to determine what kind of effect this ban has on data collection/data brokers. I also think it is unique in that the US government is the employer of military personnel, so if they take any action related to protecting their employee data from brokers or from selling, maybe this can be a model for all US citizens, or at least for other employers.

warner25 3y ago
To my knowledge, I'm not banned from using TikTok as a US military service member. The ban is about using it on government furnished equipment / devices / networks.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]