5 ms·

From the opt-out link: > If you are a California, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, or Utah resident, you have the right to request that we delete personal info

From the opt-out link: > If you are a California, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, or Utah resident, you have the right to request that we delete personal information that we collect about you, subject to certain exceptions. I think it's time to require this on a national level. This is getting ridiculous.

aljgz 2y ago
That's a step forward, but not a solution. There are so many firms collecting data on everyone. There should be something similar to a "National no call list". If you register there, all firms should delete your information or face consequences.
- radicaldreamer 2y ago
  Unfortunately this will be used to discriminate against people when applying for a loan or a job, so we must make it illegal to discriminate when these data brokers return nothing for a search because someone has opted-out.
  - nickff 2y ago
    If you’re going to make it illegal for anyone to use the data broker information to make decisions, you should just ban the data brokers from existing.
    - anon373839 2y ago
      Bingo. This is clearly the answer. However, law enforcement buys from data brokers, so it will never happen.
      - hdkwnwnen 2y ago
        This is the crux of the issue. The ever evolving police apparatus would never give up such a thing. The people who write the laws and their spook handlers want to increase data collection, if anything. Does anyone else feel like we are slipping into a Dark Mirror episode? I fear that nothing will be sacred soon.
        wyre 2y ago
        I thought the whole premise of Dark Mirror was that we are slipping into a Dark Mirror episode.
    - Arrath 2y ago
      Ideally, yes.
- jjtheblunt 2y ago
  Firms don't seem to face consequences for violating the no-call list, as people notice FCC does not seem to stop spam calls or texts.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    It ebbs and flows. Afaik, most of the spam calls and text tend to "leak" through over international agreements, until the carriers block them.
- weikju 2y ago
  so register in a central database to not be registered in a bunch more central databases? Then the one "do not collect data" list will be leaked over and over?
- faeriechangling 2y ago
  The national do not call list isn’t effective so I can’t advocate for another one as a solution UNTIL the first implementation is fixed.
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - celdon25 2y ago
    This is not a partisan issue.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  It's also not a guarantee anything was ever really deleted. What about offsite/physical backups? Seems highly impractical.
s_dev 2y ago
It's enlightening to see read comments from this forum when GDPR was being introduced. It was just seen as pesky legislation designed to trap people needlessly in red tape and not legit privacy protections. I think a lot of Americans are coming around to sense -- now seeing US companies consistently abuse their data. The US should have similar legislation to protect Americans. Here's an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17154971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17154971
- celdon25 2y ago
  Seems like you're putting words in my mouth. The Utah law is 14 pages, where the GDPR is 88 pages, with at least twice as many words per page. We don't need a sledgehammer here.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Given that the EU has already taken its licks for the ineffective "cookie law" and used that experience to draft the GDPR, I'm inclined to think that length is quite necessary. I'm sure it's possible to express the spirit in a much shorter law, but such a law would be likely to facilitate legitimate activity by simply creating loopholes that severely neuter or even nullify the whole thing (which is one of the common failure modes of US legislation). Specifically, the EU's teasing out an effective definition of consent is paramount, otherwise the only thing a US privacy law would mean is a few more paragraphs in the bullshit legalese "terms" that nobody reads. Frankly I think Congress should just import the text of the GDPR wholesale and let the courts sort it out. I doubt the outcome could be any worse than what surveillance industry lobbyists end up doing to domestically crafted legislation.
    - celdon25 2y ago
      Sounds like they should hire you to tell them how to write the laws then!
      - mindslight 2y ago
rkagerer 2y ago
Or legislate these things have to be opt-in. I remember when politeness dictated you ask someone before even taking their photo. I think the companies collecting personal information assume they have more entitlement to it they they actually do, and are on the wrong side of the law - especially when breaches like this result in real damage. I'd like to see a few really harsh class action lawsuits bite them in the ass and leave behind bad enough scars that other firms begin to see personal data as a liability not as asset.
specialist 2y ago
Ain't nobody got time for all that. Opt-in by default. And then if I want me some spam, I'll ask for it.
ZoomerCretin 2y ago
> I think it's time to require this on a national level. This is getting ridiculous. How would you have known to opt out from your data being retained? Were you aware of this site before reading this article? I know I wasn't.

aljgz 2y ago

That's a step forward, but not a solution. There are so many firms collecting data on everyone. There should be something similar to a "National no call list". If you register there, all firms should delete your information or face consequences.

radicaldreamer 2y ago
Unfortunately this will be used to discriminate against people when applying for a loan or a job, so we must make it illegal to discriminate when these data brokers return nothing for a search because someone has opted-out.
- nickff 2y ago
  If you’re going to make it illegal for anyone to use the data broker information to make decisions, you should just ban the data brokers from existing.
  - anon373839 2y ago
    Bingo. This is clearly the answer. However, law enforcement buys from data brokers, so it will never happen.
    - hdkwnwnen 2y ago
      This is the crux of the issue. The ever evolving police apparatus would never give up such a thing. The people who write the laws and their spook handlers want to increase data collection, if anything. Does anyone else feel like we are slipping into a Dark Mirror episode? I fear that nothing will be sacred soon.
      - wyre 2y ago
        I thought the whole premise of Dark Mirror was that we are slipping into a Dark Mirror episode.
  - Arrath 2y ago
    Ideally, yes.
jjtheblunt 2y ago
Firms don't seem to face consequences for violating the no-call list, as people notice FCC does not seem to stop spam calls or texts.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  It ebbs and flows. Afaik, most of the spam calls and text tend to "leak" through over international agreements, until the carriers block them.
weikju 2y ago
so register in a central database to not be registered in a bunch more central databases? Then the one "do not collect data" list will be leaked over and over?
faeriechangling 2y ago
The national do not call list isn’t effective so I can’t advocate for another one as a solution UNTIL the first implementation is fixed.
KennyBlanken 2y ago
[flagged]
- celdon25 2y ago
  This is not a partisan issue.
ranger_danger 2y ago
It's also not a guarantee anything was ever really deleted. What about offsite/physical backups? Seems highly impractical.

s_dev 2y ago

It's enlightening to see read comments from this forum when GDPR was being introduced. It was just seen as pesky legislation designed to trap people needlessly in red tape and not legit privacy protections. I think a lot of Americans are coming around to sense -- now seeing US companies consistently abuse their data. The US should have similar legislation to protect Americans. Here's an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17154971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17154971

celdon25 2y ago
Seems like you're putting words in my mouth. The Utah law is 14 pages, where the GDPR is 88 pages, with at least twice as many words per page. We don't need a sledgehammer here.
- mindslight 2y ago
  Given that the EU has already taken its licks for the ineffective "cookie law" and used that experience to draft the GDPR, I'm inclined to think that length is quite necessary. I'm sure it's possible to express the spirit in a much shorter law, but such a law would be likely to facilitate legitimate activity by simply creating loopholes that severely neuter or even nullify the whole thing (which is one of the common failure modes of US legislation). Specifically, the EU's teasing out an effective definition of consent is paramount, otherwise the only thing a US privacy law would mean is a few more paragraphs in the bullshit legalese "terms" that nobody reads. Frankly I think Congress should just import the text of the GDPR wholesale and let the courts sort it out. I doubt the outcome could be any worse than what surveillance industry lobbyists end up doing to domestically crafted legislation.
  - celdon25 2y ago
    Sounds like they should hire you to tell them how to write the laws then!
    - mindslight 2y ago

rkagerer 2y ago

Or legislate these things have to be opt-in. I remember when politeness dictated you ask someone before even taking their photo. I think the companies collecting personal information assume they have more entitlement to it they they actually do, and are on the wrong side of the law - especially when breaches like this result in real damage. I'd like to see a few really harsh class action lawsuits bite them in the ass and leave behind bad enough scars that other firms begin to see personal data as a liability not as asset.

specialist 2y ago

Ain't nobody got time for all that. Opt-in by default. And then if I want me some spam, I'll ask for it.

ZoomerCretin 2y ago

> I think it's time to require this on a national level. This is getting ridiculous. How would you have known to opt out from your data being retained? Were you aware of this site before reading this article? I know I wasn't.