4 ms·

This type of stuff is a prime example of our laws lagging behind technology. All these companies that hoover up personal information and sell it on the gray mar

This type of stuff is a prime example of our laws lagging behind technology. All these companies that hoover up personal information and sell it on the gray market should be regulated out of existence. Does the EU stand for this type of thing?

readthenotes1 2y ago
The writeup said this is all public information, even if personal. Do we really want government bureaucrats being the only ones with access to your conviction records??
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  > Do we really want government bureaucrats being the only ones with access to your conviction records?? I sense a tone of sarcastic incredulity in this question but... yes? If you want to run background checks on people that's one thing, but A) it should cost money if for no other reason than to stop people scraping other's information for no reason, B) it should only be accessible if you can provide a justification for why you need that information, like you're trying to hire someone for a job or something. Like in a minority of cases, for example the sex offender registry[1] comes to mind, I can understand why the public has an interest in having that information be readily available. For your average Joe Blow with a parking ticket or who stole a beer once? If he's done his time, leave him be. 1: Of course that system has all kinds of it's own issues but that's another conversation.
- mywittyname 2y ago
  As someone who works with the data from some of the vendors outlined in this article (and many others), I can confidently say, this data is not just public records, and the term "public records" is used to be deliberately obscure. What they really mean is the data that you give to other companies. It could be public records, such as real estate records, it could be "public" in the sense of details you publish online yourself, such as on LinkedIn or Facebook, or it could be details like who you bank with, the approximate values in each account, or what you like to spend your money on. This is one of those things some people are okay with, up until the point where they get bitten by it. It's weird enough when someone sends you a congratulations on your new baby when you haven't told anyone, but it's really weird when you get the same congratulations for the baby didn't have. Except replace "having a baby" with "went to prison." I think even you'd be upset if you started losing out on job opportunities because one of these services confused you with a convict of a similar name or address. Or your neighbors start dealing in scuttlebutt regarding something from these platforms.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    > This is one of those things some people are okay with People aren’t “ok with it”. The idea that people are ok with spying is one of those lies that the surveillance industry tells themselves. But they know it’s not true, which is why it’s always much harder to not be spied on than to accept the default. That’s why settings keep reverting to spying, and why almost no one chose to let Facebook track them when Apple gave the equal-handed option.
    - mywittyname 2y ago
      And yet we can't get effective privacy laws enacted in this country, outside of California. Why do you think that is? I mean, the person I'm replying to justified their stance by basically say, "well the government does it and this power shouldn't be limited to just government bureaucrats" Which indicates to me that this an issue that falls largely across party lines. That would also explain why California's practically the only state with privacy laws with teeth.
      - janalsncm 2y ago
        Real answer? There are privacy advocates, but they haven’t proven to be a critical constituency for any campaign. If inaction on this issue won’t change people’s votes, there’s no reason for a politician to do anything, and a lot of reasons not to.
  - randallsquared 2y ago
    > This is one of those things some people are okay with, up until the point where they get bitten by it. > I think even you'd be upset if you started losing out on job opportunities because one of these services confused you with a convict of a similar name or address. Wait a sec, though. I think significantly fewer people (read: almost no people) are "okay with" misinformation being reported about them, than are okay with actual information about their history being reported. There are three separate cases here: (1) accurate information regarding whether a applicant is a potentially good customer based on their history, (2) accidentally inaccurate information about that, and (3) fraudulently inaccurate information about that. The "some people" who are okay with "this" are okay with the first. If you have to lump the second and third in to drum up outrage, maybe that's a sign that the outrage is not all that appropriate.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  Well, either "absolutely yes" or "not even them". Probably somewhere in between those. Honestly, a question like this makes me wonder how large is the bubble of people that think this way.
  - Buttons840 2y ago
    It reminds me of the experiment where people are shown a girl with purple hair holding a feminist sign and then asked which statement is more likely to be true; either (A) the girl works at a bank or (B) the girl works at a bank and is a feminist. Most people felt that statement B was more likely to be true but that is mathematically impossible. This seems similar: "Do you want only the government doing that bad thing?" Our knee-jerk reaction is "no".
    - forgot-im-old 2y ago
      Veritasium viewer?
      - Buttons840 2y ago
        Sometimes, but I think I first heard about this experiment in The Drunkards Walk, a book about how randomness affects our lives.
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      In my experience people have a tendency to not react to _just_ the written words. If B is "and is a feminist" it wouldn't surprise me if people implicitly understand A as "and is not a feminist" despite it not being worded that way.
- Buttons840 2y ago
  The choices being (A) the government has my records and (B) the government and a bunch of companies and other people have my records. I choose A.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    Or (c) anyone with motivation Which might make us question why anyone has this much info on my without my knowing it
    - reaperman 2y ago
      The current reality is a superset of (a)+(b)+(c). It also includes (d): Any individual with sufficient money has even more info on you than any single large company. They can easily have all that a corporation can get with just a bit of money. With a small amount of effort, good connections, and (optionally) owning Match Group, Reddit, Amazon, Facebook, Discord, etc - then they can access whole lot more about you. For most people it won’t matter. But for the people it does matter for, it must be an utter terror.
  - dheera 2y ago
    Me too, but sometimes the government sells data to companies and data brokers. Thats why I had to de-register from voting. They were handing my residential address to third parties. I also detest any KYC that insists on a residential address. SSN and a passport number should be more than enough to know who I am. USPS and DMV are also culprits. Never file a CoA with the USPS. They just hand out your new address to companies if you do.
cwmma 2y ago
It really seams like there is a law already on the books that applies to this company, they are just claiming the reports they provide about consumers are not "consumer reports" and thus the Fair Credit Reporting Act doesn't apply.
phkahler 2y ago
>> All these companies that hoover up personal information and sell it on the gray market should be regulated out of existence. Or maybe just ban the selling or sharing of data about people.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
I filed a complaint with the CFPB and the FTC against the commercial entities mentioned in this piece. I suggest you do the same. That’s what regulators are for. Edit: wouldn’t hurt to file a complaint with your state’s attorney general as well. Always Be Establishing A Papertrail.

readthenotes1 2y ago

The writeup said this is all public information, even if personal. Do we really want government bureaucrats being the only ones with access to your conviction records??

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> Do we really want government bureaucrats being the only ones with access to your conviction records?? I sense a tone of sarcastic incredulity in this question but... yes? If you want to run background checks on people that's one thing, but A) it should cost money if for no other reason than to stop people scraping other's information for no reason, B) it should only be accessible if you can provide a justification for why you need that information, like you're trying to hire someone for a job or something. Like in a minority of cases, for example the sex offender registry[1] comes to mind, I can understand why the public has an interest in having that information be readily available. For your average Joe Blow with a parking ticket or who stole a beer once? If he's done his time, leave him be. 1: Of course that system has all kinds of it's own issues but that's another conversation.
mywittyname 2y ago
As someone who works with the data from some of the vendors outlined in this article (and many others), I can confidently say, this data is not just public records, and the term "public records" is used to be deliberately obscure. What they really mean is the data that you give to other companies. It could be public records, such as real estate records, it could be "public" in the sense of details you publish online yourself, such as on LinkedIn or Facebook, or it could be details like who you bank with, the approximate values in each account, or what you like to spend your money on. This is one of those things some people are okay with, up until the point where they get bitten by it. It's weird enough when someone sends you a congratulations on your new baby when you haven't told anyone, but it's really weird when you get the same congratulations for the baby didn't have. Except replace "having a baby" with "went to prison." I think even you'd be upset if you started losing out on job opportunities because one of these services confused you with a convict of a similar name or address. Or your neighbors start dealing in scuttlebutt regarding something from these platforms.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  > This is one of those things some people are okay with People aren’t “ok with it”. The idea that people are ok with spying is one of those lies that the surveillance industry tells themselves. But they know it’s not true, which is why it’s always much harder to not be spied on than to accept the default. That’s why settings keep reverting to spying, and why almost no one chose to let Facebook track them when Apple gave the equal-handed option.
  - mywittyname 2y ago
    And yet we can't get effective privacy laws enacted in this country, outside of California. Why do you think that is? I mean, the person I'm replying to justified their stance by basically say, "well the government does it and this power shouldn't be limited to just government bureaucrats" Which indicates to me that this an issue that falls largely across party lines. That would also explain why California's practically the only state with privacy laws with teeth.
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      Real answer? There are privacy advocates, but they haven’t proven to be a critical constituency for any campaign. If inaction on this issue won’t change people’s votes, there’s no reason for a politician to do anything, and a lot of reasons not to.
- randallsquared 2y ago
  > This is one of those things some people are okay with, up until the point where they get bitten by it. > I think even you'd be upset if you started losing out on job opportunities because one of these services confused you with a convict of a similar name or address. Wait a sec, though. I think significantly fewer people (read: almost no people) are "okay with" misinformation being reported about them, than are okay with actual information about their history being reported. There are three separate cases here: (1) accurate information regarding whether a applicant is a potentially good customer based on their history, (2) accidentally inaccurate information about that, and (3) fraudulently inaccurate information about that. The "some people" who are okay with "this" are okay with the first. If you have to lump the second and third in to drum up outrage, maybe that's a sign that the outrage is not all that appropriate.
marcosdumay 2y ago
Well, either "absolutely yes" or "not even them". Probably somewhere in between those. Honestly, a question like this makes me wonder how large is the bubble of people that think this way.
- Buttons840 2y ago
  It reminds me of the experiment where people are shown a girl with purple hair holding a feminist sign and then asked which statement is more likely to be true; either (A) the girl works at a bank or (B) the girl works at a bank and is a feminist. Most people felt that statement B was more likely to be true but that is mathematically impossible. This seems similar: "Do you want only the government doing that bad thing?" Our knee-jerk reaction is "no".
  - forgot-im-old 2y ago
    Veritasium viewer?
    - Buttons840 2y ago
      Sometimes, but I think I first heard about this experiment in The Drunkards Walk, a book about how randomness affects our lives.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    In my experience people have a tendency to not react to _just_ the written words. If B is "and is a feminist" it wouldn't surprise me if people implicitly understand A as "and is not a feminist" despite it not being worded that way.
Buttons840 2y ago
The choices being (A) the government has my records and (B) the government and a bunch of companies and other people have my records. I choose A.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Or (c) anyone with motivation Which might make us question why anyone has this much info on my without my knowing it
  - reaperman 2y ago
    The current reality is a superset of (a)+(b)+(c). It also includes (d): Any individual with sufficient money has even more info on you than any single large company. They can easily have all that a corporation can get with just a bit of money. With a small amount of effort, good connections, and (optionally) owning Match Group, Reddit, Amazon, Facebook, Discord, etc - then they can access whole lot more about you. For most people it won’t matter. But for the people it does matter for, it must be an utter terror.
- dheera 2y ago
  Me too, but sometimes the government sells data to companies and data brokers. Thats why I had to de-register from voting. They were handing my residential address to third parties. I also detest any KYC that insists on a residential address. SSN and a passport number should be more than enough to know who I am. USPS and DMV are also culprits. Never file a CoA with the USPS. They just hand out your new address to companies if you do.

cwmma 2y ago

It really seams like there is a law already on the books that applies to this company, they are just claiming the reports they provide about consumers are not "consumer reports" and thus the Fair Credit Reporting Act doesn't apply.

phkahler 2y ago

>> All these companies that hoover up personal information and sell it on the gray market should be regulated out of existence. Or maybe just ban the selling or sharing of data about people.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

I filed a complaint with the CFPB and the FTC against the commercial entities mentioned in this piece. I suggest you do the same. That’s what regulators are for. Edit: wouldn’t hurt to file a complaint with your state’s attorney general as well. Always Be Establishing A Papertrail.