5 ms·

I had a suspicion these services actually do more harm than good, even if they're well intentioned and not actively running a data collection scheme. But this

by imiric 3y ago

I had a suspicion these services actually do more harm than good, even if they're well intentioned and not actively running a data collection scheme. But this is really a chicken-egg situation. How do you tell companies to delete your information without telling them what identifies your information? It's in these companies' interest to make this as difficult as possible, so a solution based on data hashes is highly unlikely to appear out of their good will alone. This requires strict regulation and high fines. There's also the issue of proving ownership of the data requested for deletion. Even in the EU with the GDPR, which is arguably the most progressive data privacy regulation we have, companies routinely violate this by requesting even more personal information from the requester.

letitbeirie 3y ago
> actually do more harm than good I've wondered about this too. I have a common enough name that about 2/3 of the info data brokers have on me is garbage. If every data broker could be relied on to faithfully delete my info I would sign up for Optery or Incogni today. I don't, because if even one of those 2/3 is a bad actor I'm just expending effort to clean up their data. Specifically, the data I don't want them to have.
dpkirchner 3y ago
Ideally a regulator would intervene, demanding that the data provider prove that each person in their database has explicitly opted in. That should be really easy for these companies -- it's just another record to include in our files. If they can't prove it, they must delete all related data.
- notclive 3y ago
  What does proof look like? On past projects we've recorded the time the user submitted a from (with a checked consent checkbox), but this doens't feel like rigorous proof.
  - dpkirchner 3y ago
    A scanned signature would work, I think, on a form mailed in by the user. The form would need to be clearly identified as coming from the data broker but could be provided by the company ultimately seeking your data.
- hirsin 3y ago
  And when they autofill that value with 1, because they obviously got all of that data legitimately? Will consumers be asked to prove a negative? Even test cases will run into data sharing issues.
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    >And when they autofill that value with 1, amazingly enough the law is more clever than programmers assume it is, and the clever dodges programmers come up with tend to be seen through and just lead to jail time. Prime Exhibit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser
    - 20after4 3y ago
      I don't understand how Hans Reiser is an example of this. He was convicted of murder and nothing about his case (that I could find) seems to indicate that he used "clever dodges" to skirt the law.
      - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        if one followed the case at the time Reiser seemed very much the stereotype of the really superclever person who figured they were smarter than all those dumb folks who were never going to catch him and it all fell apart real quick. Then when it fell apart he dropped back to arguing he just looked guilty because he was too smart to look innocent or something https://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/02/23/2218256/hans-reiser-and-the-geek-defense-strategy https://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/02/23/2218256/hans-reiser-... https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2010/08/02/review-from-a-reporters-notebook-the-story-behind-the-hans-reiser-murder-trial/ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2010/08/02/review-from-a-report... >He thought he was smarter than everyone else, but ultimately he was not
        20after4 3y ago
        I see what you mean. There is some nuance to that which wasn't captured in the Wikipedia article or my general awareness of the details about the case.
- databroken 3y ago
  Why not just outlaw data brokers entirely?
  - mk89 3y ago
    Because they need them for their stupid election campaigns, surveys and crap like that.
    - MeatBro 3y ago
      Yeah. They sure did a great job surveying "accurately" every election cycle.
      - mk89 3y ago
        Well, my experience says that they are decently accurate, at least here in EU. However, I would ban surveys because they can lead people to vote for the wrong person due to social pressure.
- planede 3y ago
  Ah, the evil bit.
godelski 3y ago
My impression is that it depends what company you use. I don't really trust them but at the same time, there are a lot of other companies. All I can really say is that Optery will give you a free report with very minimal information and on a test they dug up far more information that I provided (the minimum). Given that these companies, like Incogni and DeleteMe, are now sponsoring big time YouTubers I'd imagine they are soon going to get a much closer look. At minimum, they are making far more people aware of the situation and data out there. Even though many of the VPNs fall far short of the promises, it is setting a strong signal that people care about privacy and entering the public lexicon is the first step. I hope these can be a catalyst towards more state or federal privacy protection.

by imiric 3y ago

letitbeirie 3y ago

> actually do more harm than good I've wondered about this too. I have a common enough name that about 2/3 of the info data brokers have on me is garbage. If every data broker could be relied on to faithfully delete my info I would sign up for Optery or Incogni today. I don't, because if even one of those 2/3 is a bad actor I'm just expending effort to clean up their data. Specifically, the data I don't want them to have.

dpkirchner 3y ago

Ideally a regulator would intervene, demanding that the data provider prove that each person in their database has explicitly opted in. That should be really easy for these companies -- it's just another record to include in our files. If they can't prove it, they must delete all related data.

notclive 3y ago
What does proof look like? On past projects we've recorded the time the user submitted a from (with a checked consent checkbox), but this doens't feel like rigorous proof.
- dpkirchner 3y ago
  A scanned signature would work, I think, on a form mailed in by the user. The form would need to be clearly identified as coming from the data broker but could be provided by the company ultimately seeking your data.
hirsin 3y ago
And when they autofill that value with 1, because they obviously got all of that data legitimately? Will consumers be asked to prove a negative? Even test cases will run into data sharing issues.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  >And when they autofill that value with 1, amazingly enough the law is more clever than programmers assume it is, and the clever dodges programmers come up with tend to be seen through and just lead to jail time. Prime Exhibit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser
  - 20after4 3y ago
    I don't understand how Hans Reiser is an example of this. He was convicted of murder and nothing about his case (that I could find) seems to indicate that he used "clever dodges" to skirt the law.
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      if one followed the case at the time Reiser seemed very much the stereotype of the really superclever person who figured they were smarter than all those dumb folks who were never going to catch him and it all fell apart real quick. Then when it fell apart he dropped back to arguing he just looked guilty because he was too smart to look innocent or something https://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/02/23/2218256/hans-reiser-and-the-geek-defense-strategy https://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/02/23/2218256/hans-reiser-... https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2010/08/02/review-from-a-reporters-notebook-the-story-behind-the-hans-reiser-murder-trial/ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2010/08/02/review-from-a-report... >He thought he was smarter than everyone else, but ultimately he was not
      - 20after4 3y ago
        I see what you mean. There is some nuance to that which wasn't captured in the Wikipedia article or my general awareness of the details about the case.
databroken 3y ago
Why not just outlaw data brokers entirely?
- mk89 3y ago
  Because they need them for their stupid election campaigns, surveys and crap like that.
  - MeatBro 3y ago
    Yeah. They sure did a great job surveying "accurately" every election cycle.
    - mk89 3y ago
      Well, my experience says that they are decently accurate, at least here in EU. However, I would ban surveys because they can lead people to vote for the wrong person due to social pressure.
planede 3y ago
Ah, the evil bit.

godelski 3y ago

My impression is that it depends what company you use. I don't really trust them but at the same time, there are a lot of other companies. All I can really say is that Optery will give you a free report with very minimal information and on a test they dug up far more information that I provided (the minimum). Given that these companies, like Incogni and DeleteMe, are now sponsoring big time YouTubers I'd imagine they are soon going to get a much closer look. At minimum, they are making far more people aware of the situation and data out there. Even though many of the VPNs fall far short of the promises, it is setting a strong signal that people care about privacy and entering the public lexicon is the first step. I hope these can be a catalyst towards more state or federal privacy protection.