8 ms·

<< find an exec and buy their details for pennies and call them up on their cellphone. (this is usually successful, but can backfire badly -- CashApp terminated

<< find an exec and buy their details for pennies and call them up on their cellphone. (this is usually successful, but can backfire badly -- CashApp terminated my account for this shenanigans) Honestly, kudos. The rules should apply to the ones foisting this system upon us as well. This is probably the only way to make anyone in power reconsider current setup. << As soon as your cousin clicks "Yes, I would like to share the entire contents of my contacts with you" when they launch TikTok your name, phone number, email etc are all in the crowd. And people laughed at Red Reddington when he said he had no email.

jeanlucas 2y ago
Exactly this was tried by the likes of James Oliver and journalists/comedians of that caliber running ads and gathering data from politicians in Washington. It was some years ago and resulted in nothing
- lostlogin 2y ago
  Do you mean John Oliver?
  - jagermo 2y ago
    or Jamie Olive Oil?
- Frederation 2y ago
  LOL!
IgorPartola 2y ago
There was a post from someone a long time ago who has an email address and name similar to Make Cuban but not quite. He got quite a few cold call emails meant for Cuban. A lot of them were quite sad (people asking for money for medical procedures and such).
Aurornis 2y ago
> The rules should apply to the ones foisting this system upon us as well. This is probably the only way to make anyone in power reconsider current setup. Unless your problem is with the company doing the privacy violations, this doesn’t make any sense.
- swiftcoder 2y ago
  Pretty much all companies are doing the privacy violations. You think your doctors office doesn't sell their contact list?
  - jlokier 2y ago
    Where I live, which is not in the USA, I'm confident my doctor's office doesn't sell their contact list - or at least, not without statistical anonymisation and aggregation for research purposes. They probably outsource processing the data and storing it to other entities, but that will be under contracts which govern how the data may be used and handled. I assume that's not what "sell the data" means in this conversation. It would be such an egregious violation of local data protection law to sell patient personal details for unrestricted commercial use, including their contact info, and it would make the political news where I live if they were found out.
    - nottorp 2y ago
      Also "not in the USA" i actually work on a medical ish application these days (not the in production version, mind but a fork with new features that's entirely separate at the moment). I have access to ... zero patient data. Our entire test database is synthetic records.
    - WhyNotHugo 2y ago
      Here in NL my local doctors office just delegates their IT to some US-based company. I doubt they take privacy seriously. Their whole security is a joke. but they make a theatre out of it to give an impression otherwise. EU law means little in this respect, since it's not enforced and most people don't understand enough on the subject to even evaluate what's going on with their data (or their clients data).
ajcp 2y ago
It's odd that of the two replies referencing people, both got their names obviously wrong. Is that a new phishing tactic?
- otteromkram 2y ago
  New AI tactic.
  - 0_____0 2y ago
    salting the fields are we? total informational warfare, the digital equivalent of Sherburne's March to the sea during the American Civil War.
- notduncansmith 2y ago
  Russian bot tactic? Guessing it’s an easy way to farm interaction as people comment back to correct the mistake.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - pphysch 2y ago
    An innocent coincidence, by two established users that link their contact info in their profile. It must be the Russians! It's genuinely sad that this level of Cold War paranoia has been normalized again.
- cutemonster 2y ago
  Which are those comments? Aha, "Make Cuban" is one such comment and Mr Oliver someone
stavros 2y ago
Where do you buy their details from?
- qingcharles 2y ago
  Right now, my goto is signalhire
  - stavros 2y ago
    Thank you, though I have a feeling that they get their data from their own sign up form.
    - mathgeek 2y ago
      This is to be expected as a source of their data, no?
      - stavros 2y ago
        Yeah, it would be, it's just a bit ironic.
  - DoctorOetker 2y ago
    As we all know some of the "consent" pop-ups have a first page of general settings, and then a "vendors" page to further deselect all the "legitimate interests". I recently noticed that a fraction of the "vendors" allow deselecting the "legitimate interest" but have the "consent" tick box marked and unmodifiable. Consider the following page: https://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/54332/ https://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/artic... The following vendors have un-deselectable "consent" tickboxes: Skimbit Ltd Confiant Inc. Lumen Research Limited Visarity Technologies GmbH DoubleVerify Inc. Revcontent, LLC Adssets AB Integral Ad Science (incorporating ADmantX) Mirando GmbH & Co KG Polar Mobile Group Inc. Rockabox Media Ltd Telecoming S.A. Seenthis AB HUMAN Papirfly AS NEXD One Tech Group GmbH illuma technology limited CHEQ AI TECHNOLOGIES Adjust Digital A/S VRTCAL Markets Inc Cavai AS Kiosked Ltd Protected Media LTD Oracle Data Cloud - Moat Bannernow, Inc. Jetpack Digital LLC GeoEdge Ensighten IVO Media Ltd Online Media Solutions LTD Mobkoi Ltd Redbranch, Inc dba Fraudlogix Alphalyr SAS Silverbullet Data Services Group Stream Eye OOD adbalancer Werbeagentur GmbH Somplo Ltd Velocity Made Good LLC Vyde Ltd. Adelaide Metrics Inc Sqreem Technologies Private Limited TMT Digital Inc dpa-infocom GmbH Brandhouse/Subsero A/S streaMonkey GmbH Alkimi Zeit Agency ApS Sitewit, Corp AccountInsight Ltd Aderize, Inc. fraud0 GmbH Channel99, Inc. Videobot Ltd Appstock LTD. Dando online LTD EMBRACE Systems GmbH Hiili SL YIELDBIRD SP. Z O.O. Volentio JSD Limited BEAPUP SOLUTIONS LTD Public Good Software Inc. Kidoz Inc. DataDome SA Sarigato Sp. z o.o. Gesher Software LTD dba bridgeupp Playdigo Inc Sipo Inc EliteAppgrade SpinX Pte Ltd Creatopy INC Codevelop Technologies GmbH Adgrid Media, LLC ProgrammaticX LTD Nitrouppi LTD 9 Dots Media Ltd Vudoo Pty Ltd Mobavenue Media Pvt Ltd Carbonatix LTD 1) What is up with these? 2) Are these even legal under GDPR rules? 3) Does this not nullify arguments by certain 3 letter agencies that users "consent" to their tracking? 4) Who is behind these companies? Any idea on how to approach this from an investigative journalism angle? Can we figure out the headquarters, employee counts, CEO's of these companies? 5) If "undeselectable consent tickboxes" qualify as legally valid consent, doesn't this set a precedent to foist off miryads of types of lack of consent as "consent"? Will this enable legalizing rape? Where does this Pandora's box end? How is this any different from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fQsrwBi2Jo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fQsrwBi2Jo 6) As far as I understand, an illegal contract is void. If the forms submitted by users contained undeselectable "consent tickboxes"; then the forms no longer constitute legal contracts. Observe that this is regardless of the preferences of all the other tickboxes: even if users were to lazy to deselect all the deselectable tickboxes, the mere presence of deselectable tickboxes voids these forms as contracts. This means that all the other vendors didn't receive any consent, since their specific submitted form-as-a-contract is void, even if the majority of the vendors had consent tickboxes that could be deselected. It would seem prudent for such companies to insist that the forms don't contain undeselectable tickboxes for any companies since it would nullify the consent they hope to receive.

jeanlucas 2y ago

Exactly this was tried by the likes of James Oliver and journalists/comedians of that caliber running ads and gathering data from politicians in Washington. It was some years ago and resulted in nothing

lostlogin 2y ago
Do you mean John Oliver?
- jagermo 2y ago
  or Jamie Olive Oil?
Frederation 2y ago
LOL!

IgorPartola 2y ago

There was a post from someone a long time ago who has an email address and name similar to Make Cuban but not quite. He got quite a few cold call emails meant for Cuban. A lot of them were quite sad (people asking for money for medical procedures and such).

Aurornis 2y ago

> The rules should apply to the ones foisting this system upon us as well. This is probably the only way to make anyone in power reconsider current setup. Unless your problem is with the company doing the privacy violations, this doesn’t make any sense.

swiftcoder 2y ago
Pretty much all companies are doing the privacy violations. You think your doctors office doesn't sell their contact list?
- jlokier 2y ago
  Where I live, which is not in the USA, I'm confident my doctor's office doesn't sell their contact list - or at least, not without statistical anonymisation and aggregation for research purposes. They probably outsource processing the data and storing it to other entities, but that will be under contracts which govern how the data may be used and handled. I assume that's not what "sell the data" means in this conversation. It would be such an egregious violation of local data protection law to sell patient personal details for unrestricted commercial use, including their contact info, and it would make the political news where I live if they were found out.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    Also "not in the USA" i actually work on a medical ish application these days (not the in production version, mind but a fork with new features that's entirely separate at the moment). I have access to ... zero patient data. Our entire test database is synthetic records.
  - WhyNotHugo 2y ago
    Here in NL my local doctors office just delegates their IT to some US-based company. I doubt they take privacy seriously. Their whole security is a joke. but they make a theatre out of it to give an impression otherwise. EU law means little in this respect, since it's not enforced and most people don't understand enough on the subject to even evaluate what's going on with their data (or their clients data).

ajcp 2y ago

It's odd that of the two replies referencing people, both got their names obviously wrong. Is that a new phishing tactic?

otteromkram 2y ago
New AI tactic.
- 0_____0 2y ago
  salting the fields are we? total informational warfare, the digital equivalent of Sherburne's March to the sea during the American Civil War.
notduncansmith 2y ago
Russian bot tactic? Guessing it’s an easy way to farm interaction as people comment back to correct the mistake.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pphysch 2y ago
  An innocent coincidence, by two established users that link their contact info in their profile. It must be the Russians! It's genuinely sad that this level of Cold War paranoia has been normalized again.
cutemonster 2y ago
Which are those comments? Aha, "Make Cuban" is one such comment and Mr Oliver someone

stavros 2y ago

Where do you buy their details from?

qingcharles 2y ago
Right now, my goto is signalhire
- stavros 2y ago
  Thank you, though I have a feeling that they get their data from their own sign up form.
  - mathgeek 2y ago
    This is to be expected as a source of their data, no?
    - stavros 2y ago
      Yeah, it would be, it's just a bit ironic.
- DoctorOetker 2y ago
  As we all know some of the "consent" pop-ups have a first page of general settings, and then a "vendors" page to further deselect all the "legitimate interests". I recently noticed that a fraction of the "vendors" allow deselecting the "legitimate interest" but have the "consent" tick box marked and unmodifiable. Consider the following page: https://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/54332/ https://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/artic... The following vendors have un-deselectable "consent" tickboxes: Skimbit Ltd Confiant Inc. Lumen Research Limited Visarity Technologies GmbH DoubleVerify Inc. Revcontent, LLC Adssets AB Integral Ad Science (incorporating ADmantX) Mirando GmbH & Co KG Polar Mobile Group Inc. Rockabox Media Ltd Telecoming S.A. Seenthis AB HUMAN Papirfly AS NEXD One Tech Group GmbH illuma technology limited CHEQ AI TECHNOLOGIES Adjust Digital A/S VRTCAL Markets Inc Cavai AS Kiosked Ltd Protected Media LTD Oracle Data Cloud - Moat Bannernow, Inc. Jetpack Digital LLC GeoEdge Ensighten IVO Media Ltd Online Media Solutions LTD Mobkoi Ltd Redbranch, Inc dba Fraudlogix Alphalyr SAS Silverbullet Data Services Group Stream Eye OOD adbalancer Werbeagentur GmbH Somplo Ltd Velocity Made Good LLC Vyde Ltd. Adelaide Metrics Inc Sqreem Technologies Private Limited TMT Digital Inc dpa-infocom GmbH Brandhouse/Subsero A/S streaMonkey GmbH Alkimi Zeit Agency ApS Sitewit, Corp AccountInsight Ltd Aderize, Inc. fraud0 GmbH Channel99, Inc. Videobot Ltd Appstock LTD. Dando online LTD EMBRACE Systems GmbH Hiili SL YIELDBIRD SP. Z O.O. Volentio JSD Limited BEAPUP SOLUTIONS LTD Public Good Software Inc. Kidoz Inc. DataDome SA Sarigato Sp. z o.o. Gesher Software LTD dba bridgeupp Playdigo Inc Sipo Inc EliteAppgrade SpinX Pte Ltd Creatopy INC Codevelop Technologies GmbH Adgrid Media, LLC ProgrammaticX LTD Nitrouppi LTD 9 Dots Media Ltd Vudoo Pty Ltd Mobavenue Media Pvt Ltd Carbonatix LTD 1) What is up with these? 2) Are these even legal under GDPR rules? 3) Does this not nullify arguments by certain 3 letter agencies that users "consent" to their tracking? 4) Who is behind these companies? Any idea on how to approach this from an investigative journalism angle? Can we figure out the headquarters, employee counts, CEO's of these companies? 5) If "undeselectable consent tickboxes" qualify as legally valid consent, doesn't this set a precedent to foist off miryads of types of lack of consent as "consent"? Will this enable legalizing rape? Where does this Pandora's box end? How is this any different from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fQsrwBi2Jo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fQsrwBi2Jo 6) As far as I understand, an illegal contract is void. If the forms submitted by users contained undeselectable "consent tickboxes"; then the forms no longer constitute legal contracts. Observe that this is regardless of the preferences of all the other tickboxes: even if users were to lazy to deselect all the deselectable tickboxes, the mere presence of deselectable tickboxes voids these forms as contracts. This means that all the other vendors didn't receive any consent, since their specific submitted form-as-a-contract is void, even if the majority of the vendors had consent tickboxes that could be deselected. It would seem prudent for such companies to insist that the forms don't contain undeselectable tickboxes for any companies since it would nullify the consent they hope to receive.