5 ms·

Fascinating. I always request my details to be removed after completion so if my details are leaked they have a problem.

• Rygian 2y ago
  > according to the VX team: "The database DOES NOT contain information from individuals who use data opt-out services. Every person who used some sort of data opt-out service was not present." You're good, perhaps! The rest are opted-in for a data leak.
  • r00fus 2y ago
    This is a great example of why everything should be opt-in given the risk the individuals incur, not to mention the company. If society appropriately disincentivized data collection, we could even get to where companies don't see customer data as an asset instead more as a liability.
    • xkcd-sucks 2y ago
      It seems hard to disincentivize "data" in the same way it's hard to disincentivize "cocaine", e.g. to most companies "10 kg of cocaine" is a liability but there exist certain companies generally staffed by more unpleasant people who make it their business to treat it as an asset. Which means going to a different layer / structural solution maybe. How does the value of data go to zero?
      • rusk 2y ago
        Lots of companies ran a mile from data once GDPR dropped and it’s pretty much a standard threat model for new information architectures
    • onemoresoop 2y ago
      Nothing meaningful should stored due to data leaks liability, period. Now if data really leaks out users should be able to sue and get compensated. If companies are made to pay they'll clean up their act fast.
    • fragmede 2y ago
      It shouldn't be opt-either. It should be treated as radioactive waste that you don't want anywhere near you, your family, not in cold storage, not even in a mine in the Yucca mountains.
  • e40 2y ago
    I briefly looked into these opt-out services. Quite expensive, they are. This is the first I've seen of them. Are they scams or worth the expense?
• adamomada 2y ago
  Your details just go into a different file, and you show as sus on the next background check.
  • londons_explore 2y ago
    This is why I don't use those privacy services. An awful lot of companies use background checks as a decider on if they are going to offer you service, or to give discounts to low-risk customers. I might end up paying extra because my insurance company decided I didn't fall into their 'lowest risk' bucket because my background check came back as "we have never heard of this gal" because I once used a data privacy protecting service or they can't find my facebook/linkedin/twitter.
    • namaria 2y ago
      So your rationale is to avoid seeking out privacy on the off chance that you might not get the biggest discount available when buying insurance?
      • londons_explore 2y ago
        or a mortgage, credit card, or bank account, yep. There is easily a 10x difference in insurance prices between "known good customer" and "probably fraudulent customer" - and that difference is the difference between being able to own your own house (with mortgage to begin with) and renting for life. Most people would value owning their own home over having some computer system using their data to select one ad over another.
        • namaria 2y ago
          While there might be such a difference in price, equating trying to avoid data collection through legitimate means with being flagged as a probable fraudster and having to pay 10x is not sound reasoning. If people were routinely getting gauged like this for trying to opt out of something, there would be a pretty huge story in that and I doubt it would go unreported.