3 ms·

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 reco

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.
- mywittyname 2y ago
  You're making my point. In your own words, "almost no people" would be okay with misinformation be sold about them. Yet misinformation is being sold them. And all these vendors hide behind the "we don't guarantee the accuracy of this data" disclaimer. Requiring data sold to be accurate is a type of privacy regulation. And it's one that would basically kill all of these industries because nobody can make that guarantee.

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.

mywittyname 2y ago
You're making my point. In your own words, "almost no people" would be okay with misinformation be sold about them. Yet misinformation is being sold them. And all these vendors hide behind the "we don't guarantee the accuracy of this data" disclaimer. Requiring data sold to be accurate is a type of privacy regulation. And it's one that would basically kill all of these industries because nobody can make that guarantee.