The Ethics Of Data Brokers

c0d3h4x0r writes "MSNBC's Bob Sullivan asks, Whatever happened to the ChoicePoint bill? and raises some good points: 'Few experts believe that there was a sudden lack of computer security this year. Rather, there was a sudden bout of truth, thanks to California state law. [...] But in other ways, all the legislation misses the point. The ChoicePoint data leak story was not really about identity theft. It was about this: "Who the hell is ChoicePoint, and why is it making money selling my personal information?"' This makes me wonder what the Slashdot crowd thinks: should anyone be able to sell information about you at all? The general public seems to think not, while our elected officials seem to think it's just fine. How does the information gathered and sold by data brokers differ from the information collected and sold by a private investigator, or is there even a real difference?"

Comments

someone has to...

[Anonymous Coward]

someone has to collect and distribute this stuff for things like background checks. are we suggesting the govt should do it instead of the private sector?

Re:someone has to...

[MikeMacK]

The government already does it. The private sector just gets paid to do it.

Re:someone has to...

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Yes. If ever there was something that the government should be doing instead of Wal-Mart, it's handling background checks.

Re:someone has to...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I simply think no one should, I like my privacy, I don't need a god damn credit card, and neither does ANYONE ELSE. Guess what? For THOUSANDS OF YEARS society functioned without background checks. What happens in 20-40 years when the corporations ARE the government? Sound silly? Think about how much power corporations wield over government now. Eventually they will realize that they can run the government more profitably and lobby until more, and more of what is currently government responsibilities fall into the hands of corps.

Re:someone has to...

[kiatoa]

Government or private sector what difference? Historical evidence suggests to me that neither is trustworthy. Now, if there was a 50% cut to me every time $$ were made on selling my data I probably wouldn't care anymore about who else profits.

Re:someone has to...

[max born]

Not necessarily.

We could go back to the way it used to be done before the credit reporting bureaus. If somebody wants to give you a credit card or a loan they can ask you for a reference. You go to your bank or your current creditors and authorize them to give the you a reference in the form of a summary of your financial history or whaterver they need that you're prepared to give.

We could close all the other agencies down and the system would still work.

Re:someone has to...

[Jelloman]

For THOUSANDS OF YEARS society functioned without background checks.

Actually, for thousands of years, society has functioned with a built-in background check: it was called community. Before airplanes and cars and telephones and e-commerce and so on, people were a lot less mobile and had *much* less opportunity for anonymity. Your friendly neighborhood banker either knew you, or knew someone who knew you.

That's not even remotely possible today, but the need is still there, hence the emergence of credit bureaus, et.al. Of course it's probably become TOO convenient now... banks seem to have become so lazy that their "background check" consists of making sure the SSN you provide matches the name you provide. They've made the quality of their lending dependent on the quality of the data they get from credit bureaus, and they treat that data as some kind of God-sent Truth; yet their practices seem to be designed specifically to foul up that data by making identity theft so easy.

Re:someone has to...

[Fallen_Knight]

that is really a fantastic idea i think, everytime someone buys data about you you get paid, i mean it is YOUR data isn't it?

If someone like that was done i probably not care about anyone selling my info because you'd beable to see who was buying it to.

Re:someone has to...

[tombeard]

SH1T!
I wish all the moderator points I never used(lots) on you!
Why isn't this obvious?

Re:someone has to...

[Foobar of Borg]

Eventually they will realize that they can run the government more profitably and lobby until more, and more of what is currently government responsibilities fall into the hands of corps.

Oh, come on, that's nothing but abject paranoia!
- Bob Scranton, founder and CEO of Admiral Bob's Navy

What Ethics

[PacketScan]

It been clear for a long time that they don't care. And it seems the government doesn't either. I too wonder about the choicepoint bill. However if i do become a victim of identity theft i will take it into my own hands and investigate. If i find a data broker or similar was involved i will be sueing. Under what statute i don't know yet.

Re:What Ethics

[rovingeyes]

If i find a data broker or similar was involved i will be sueing. Under what statute i don't know yet.

Not an insightful advice but hiring a qualified lawyer might help.

Re:What Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

"Under what statute" is the key issue here; there isn't one (at least in the US). There no was to stop companies from collecting personal information, but sale of such information should carry the same liabilities as sale of anything else. Thus, if you sell incorrect information about me, and I get denied for a mortgage I would otherwise have qualified for, I should be able to collect damages, just as I would have if a faulty appliance had started a fire in my home.

Re:What Ethics

[abirdman]

I'm not disagreeing, but I want to point out the fact that the "sueing" part will almost certainly require enlisting the help of a lawyer. That will cost (at least) a couple of thousand dollars if any litigation is involved, and probably more. It's possible, if there's been an obvious abuse, the lawyer would do the work on contingency, but only if it was an "open-and-shut case" with an obvious (large enough) loss, and then it will cost you 1/3 of any settlement.

So, we're faced with abuse for which the only relief available is by spending quite a lot of money up front. If some credit agency messes up your history, it could cost you a few hundred dollars on a car loan, possibly more on a home loan. Likely, it's not enough to pursue. If someone steals your identity, that could cost you time and money to fix, but it's not likely to run into thousands. Your own time and aggravation are not likely to be valued highly (and hence, reimbursed) in a court, even if you win.

These companies are allowed to do what they do because "the consumer has legal recourse." The fact the recourse costs more than the damage incurred is a trap. If we had to pay a bureaucrat to "fix" a credit problem, it would be called graft and corruption. Having to pay a lawyer for the same thing is considered "the American way" and is supposedly no problem at all. A company who screws 10 million people for 100 bucks each makes a billion. If it costs a thousand bucks to get your hundred bucks back, who's going to pursue it?

Its like mastribation

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time you get credit you are giving them the info. Its much like you are participating in your own exploitation.

Enjoy.

Sell Me Out

[fishybell]

Sure, why not? Sell all the information you have about me.

How else would I be able to find out what credit cards I pre-approved for?

copyright time?

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

if collections of facts can be copyrighted (e.g. maps & dictionaries), couldn't you copyright your personal data?

it's all a collection of facts, generated by you being alive and doing stuff. so you should automatically own copyright.

so therefore anyone who knows anything about you should be guilty of infringement..and if they sell it, they should be guilty of distribution.

Re:copyright time?

[slicer622]

interesting idea. slashdot has an incredible double standard when it comes to freedom of information. we don't want to pay for any of 'the man's' information, but if you want our information, you'll have to not only pay for it, but then also pry it from our cold dead fingers.

hmm, i guess i don't have a point here. move along

Re:copyright time?

[aengblom]

You can't copyright facts. You can only copyright how those facts are described.

I can copyright "ExitWindowsEx has Slashdot UserID number 250475," but I can't copyright the fact that ExitWindowsEx has that ID number. In fact, now that I have this knowledge, I can even sell it.

Re:copyright time?

[Anonymous Coward]

who the heck paid "the man's" salary while he piled the data into neat little ant hills?
The tax payer footed the USGS bill, USGS data should be freely available.

If somebody wants to pay for my info then fine, but I should get to set the price.

Re:copyright time?

[cpt kangarooski]

No. In fact, not just no, but hell no. It's a stupid idea.

Facts are not copyrightable. So if you write down that you have brown hair, I can extract that fact and use it myself without infringing. Since there's no copyright, there's nothing to infringe on.

Compilations of facts might be copyrightable, but are not necessarily so. In order to be copyrightable, a compilation must possess originality, i.e. a creative selection and arrangement of components. All facts is not a creative selection. Ordinary arrangements, e.g. chronological, or alphabetical, is not a creative arrangement. It is fairly difficult to construct a copyrightable factual compilation (mostly it is a matter of creative selection).

As facts remain uncopyrightable, they can be copied from the copyrighted compilation, so long as the compilation itself is not copied. Furthermore, they can be observed from the source. So long as the copyrighted work is not itself copied, it is not infringing to have an identical, independently produced work, however the facts within are obtained. While it's possible to claim that sufficient similarity is indicative of copying (think of the odds of monkeys on typewriters) access is required to allege this. Since we're talking about information you don't want made public, there would presumably be no public copies which a purported infringer could've copied from, so similarity doesn't work for you.

But this is all dancing around the central issue: living your life and in the process producing facts is not an act of creative authorship. Just because you do something doesn't mean that you own the fact of it, or that the fact of it, by itself, is a creative work. You'd need to write it down. And even then, you can only protect what you write, as opposed to the uncopyrightable material within or the independently observable facts your writing is based upon.

Privacy is an interesting issue, particularly given the ability to store, search, and correlate vast quantities of information quickly and automatically. But it has nothing to do with copyright. Again, your post was pretty stupid.

Re:copyright time?

[SilverspurG]

living your life and in the process producing facts is not an act of creative authorship

I know we go round on copyright issues all the time. Forget about that for a few moments please.

If my neighbor collects a database about me which outlines my entire life it's typically viewed as stalking. If a company does it then it's a legal business.

What gives? If stalking is about motive it can be demonstrated that the company compiling the database is not worried in the least about my best welfare. If stalking is about the nature of the data collected then it stands to reason that tracking my spending habits is certainly a behavioral characterization and it'd be tough to write a mutually exclusive definition for stalking.

So, apart from the pleasantries we've exchanged about copyrights, how is it that the consumer database agencies are not empowering employees who may be stalkers? I'm positive that there've been cases where data was misused by internal employees, either first-hand or by giving that information to otherwise unpriveleged parties.

Re:copyright time?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't copyright facts. You can only copyright how those facts are described.

So, for example...

I can copyright "pop_song.mp3 has bitstream 100011...1101" but I can't copyright the fact that pop_song.mp3 has that bitstream. In fact, now that I have this knowledge, I can even sell it.

Re:copyright time?

[cpt kangarooski]

If my neighbor collects a database about me which outlines my entire life it's typically viewed as stalking. If a company does it then it's a legal business.

What gives?

This depends on the specific elements of criminal stalking as set forth by statute. A quick glance at the Massachusetts statute (chosen because I live there; I have no idea whether there's a model act, or what) includes some elements that distinguish the two scenarios:

The defendant has to be malicious, their acts have to be directed at a particular person (presumably as opposed to observing everyone, or everyone that meets some particular criteria), the acts have to cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and make a threat, with the intent of placing the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury. (There are other elements, but these are the most pertinent ones)

So apparently, at least with regards to criminal stalking, just collecting every scrap of data about someone or someones is not criminal. (There might be some other crime involved, or maybe a tort or something -- I'm not going to exhaustively research this for a /. post)

If stalking is about motive it can be demonstrated that the company compiling the database is not worried in the least about my best welfare.

So? Virtually no one is worried in the least about your welfare. The duty of caring about you is very rare. People are only obligated, generally, to not hurt other people. They don't have to help. Sometimes people might assume a duty to care about you, e.g. your doctor. But this is pretty unusual, and not something you'd see between all the strangers in the world. From the MGL statute discussed above, there has to be actual malice and an intent to make you afraid of injury or death; few if any people will have that mental state.

If stalking is about the nature of the data collected

Apparently it's not. This seems sensible. I'm less worried, in a stalking context, about someone who looks up where I live, than someone who actively follows me around all day, even if they aren't collecting any data at all. The researcher is more of a concern from a fraud angle, than a threat to my person.

how is it that the consumer database agencies are not empowering employees who may be stalkers?

Maybe they are. Do they have a duty not to? Does the phone company have a duty not to give my address and number to my stalker when they're passing out the phone book?

Certainly there have been cases of stalkers that used commonly available data about people. I recall a case in NH where a man stalked a woman, primarily by gathering or buying copies of data about her, finally resulting in his murdering her and killing himself. It's sad, I guess, but I'm not sure if there's a good way to prevent it without resulting in significant burdens on everyone else. While I'm no (naive) Libertarian, I do tend to find that it's better to be free and unsafe than unfree and safe... especially since you're probably not all that safe in the latter case, anyway. See any safe police states lately?

Re:copyright time?

[SilverspurG]

There's still a vast conflict of interest which should be cause enough for a grand scale investigation by the Better Business Bureau, or someone.

Credit agencies, insurance agencies, and banking agencies are tied together. All of these agencies have a profit motive. That profit margin can be increased if a greater number of people have a lower credit score because a lower credit score is justification for higher interest rates. Higher interest rates will result in higher default rates if their income level decreases or the cost of living for their area increases more than their income. Higher default rates will further reduce the ability to advance income level and will also result in higher insurance rates--of which car insurance is legally mandatory in most states. While one can easily say "it's the consumers fault" it's impossible to deny that the businesses involved actually have an interest in encouraging this downward spiral. As long as they properly profile their customers ahead of time (those who we can screw, those who we can milk, and those we shouldn't mess with) there's little risk of a political or even media backlash. This profiling is justifiable from a business perspective. From the standpoint of "truth, justice, the American way, and leader of the Free World", however, one would expect that our tax dollars are working to prevent this wholesale exploitation of consumers.

As a basic business model this conflict of interest is very likely especially with the fanaticism for corporate growth and quarterly earnings on the stock market. From what I've seen my tax dollars have been aiding and abetting more than they've been securing me from this conflict of interest.

When it's my own tax money contributing to systems trying to lock me down as someone else's legally indentured servant I start to question everyone's motives.

Re:copyright time?

[RoadkillBunny]

it's all a collection of facts, generated by you being alive and doing stuff. so you should automatically own copyright.

If so, then my personal facts are under the GPL.

CheckPoint

[dabbaking]

has anyone every heard of checkpoint? it's one of those companies where something happens then the public goes crazy like....OMG MY CREDIT INFO GOT STOLEN!!! We should know about this stuff before it happens. My credit is safe my A$$.

sell all of my data

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead, it's OK. Richard Nixon 1600 Pennsylvania ave Washington, DC 1-800-468-7366

Re:sell all of my data

[dabbaking]

heh nixon is better than bush!

Re:sell all of my data

[SoCalChris]

Actually, I believe that he's residing in Yorba Linda, Ca these days...

Re:sell all of my data

[smellsofbikes]

Myself, I prefer a little bush every now and then.
Kate Bush, and Gavin Rossdale's old band, too.

Sue the bastards and shut them down

[rimcrazy]

These bastards almost shut down the sale of my home due to incorrect info in their database and then they want me to pay to correct it. If I had my way they should require me to approve who they want to sell my info to before a sale goes through and then I deserve a cut of every sale.

Re:Sue the bastards and shut them down

[susasusesume]

Sue them for libel (or slander, whichever applies) since they're tarnishing your reputation with incorrect facts.

Re:Sue the bastards and shut them down

[manarth]

The UK Data Protection Act gives people certain rights - this from the UK DTI site (emphasis mine):

The Act gives certain rights to individuals (called Data Subjects). It allows them to:

• find out what information a Data Controller holds about them;
• find out why the Data Controller holds the information (the purpose of the processing);
• have any inaccuracies corrected or erased;
• know who has access to their personal information and to whom the Data Controller may disclose their personal information;
  and (with certain key exceptions)
• object to the processing of their personal data where the processing is likely to cause damage or distress, or is for the purposes of direct marketing.

I'm glad I'm in the UK, but these rights are pretty fundamental for data protection. If the USA doesn't have them, it's a real shame.

oh - and you're not allowed to charge a fee for correcting inaccurate information. sounds like a recipe for blackmail and extortion.

Who Do you Trust More

[linuxbert]

Choicepoint existed to collect information government needed access to but was not legally able to collect for themsleves. Gov't couldn't collect it but they could buy it.

This led to many departments haveing the small bits of information they needed about you being aggrigated into a large clearing house.

In the case of collecting information, i think the government may be better equiped to do it. at least there are independent auditors who keep tabs on the collectors. what did choicepoint have?

-Peter

Many claim ChoicePoint helped steal 2000 election

[Serveert]

They own DBT Online which royally screwed up in Florida during the 2000 election.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row =1

A scary look into the future...

[Chris Huelsbeck]

http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=59 27

Its' not that difficult

[the_mighty_$]

should anyone be able to sell information about you at all?

Answer: it depends.

If someone is going to sell information about you, they should ask your permission first. If you grant them that permission, then they should be allowed to do it. If you do not, then they should not be allowed to do it.

I don't see how this is hard to understand.

Re:Its' not that difficult

[Jherek Carnelian]

If someone is going to sell information about you, they should ask your permission first. If you grant them that permission, then they should be allowed to do it. If you do not, then they should not be allowed to do it.

I don't see how this is hard to understand.

The hard part is the conditions under which you agree to let your information be sold. For example - most public utilities require SS# in order to get service. This means you really have no choice about providing that information to them - and today they can do whatever they want with it.

If laws were put in place to require permission, they will need to address the case providers of essential and nearly-essential services (airlines, banks, insurance, driver's licenses, etc) from demanding permission as a requirement of doing business with you. Because if such organizations are allowed to do that, then the concept of permission becomes meaningless.

Re:Its' not that difficult

[slavemowgli]

The problem with that approach is that asking for people's permission is much like requiring them to click "accept" on an EULA. Most will simply sign documents required for certain things like obtaining credit cards without reading them in great detail; and even those who do would still be forced to accept these terms if they want a credit card, for example.

Choice is only choice if there really *is* a choice. What I'd like to see would be a "privacy seal of quality", so to speak - awarded by an independent non-profit organisation which'd hold the trademarks to the seal and who'd make sure that those who use it actually take privacy concerns seriously. Of course, the guidelines for that would have to be written in a clear and unambiguous way so that you could actually take the thing seriously, too; a privacy equivalent of the CAN-SPAM act would obviously do no good.

But once such a seal would exist, it would at least be easier for consumers to choose between different vendors/stores/... and factor in privacy concerns into their decision by taking into account whether the seal was awarded or not.

Re:Its' not that difficult

[sconeu]

You misinterpret the GP.

He's not saying they need to get your permission to use your personal info, but that they need it to sell it!

Why, pray tell, do providers of "essential and nearly-essential services" need to sell your personal info? Why would they need an exemption from "Get permission *before* you sell personal info"?

Re:Its' not that difficult

[gid13]

If I had mod points right now, they'd be yours. Very nicely put.

Re:Its' not that difficult

[Anonymous Coward]

You misinterpret the GP.

No I didn't.

He's not saying they need to get your permission to use your personal info, but that they need it to sell it!

Yes, we agree.

Why, pray tell, do providers of "essential and nearly-essential services" need to sell your personal info?

Because doing so is a source of revenue for them and has been for decades now.

Why would they need an exemption from "Get permission *before* you sell personal info"?

Please go back read what I wrote -- I said nothing about exemptions. What I said is that if we pass a law that says "gotta have permission before you sell a customer's information" then the that law will be meaningless if any company is able to require that you give them that permission before they will do business with you.

It is kind of like this recent banking privacy law - a year or two ago a law was passed that banks could not just abritrarily share customer information with unrelated entities. But, the fuckers, make that the lobbyists, got all the teeth taken out of the law by saying that any business relationship is sufficient to allow sharing - including a business relationship that is simply the selling of the data in question. So, the end result was that all the banks in the country sent out a couple of pages of ultra-fine-print legalese to each of their customers that ultimately said, "Our privacy policy adheres strictly to federal law, we can do whatever the fuck we want with your private details and you can't do shit." Meet the new Boss, just like the old Boss...

Re:Its' not that difficult

[Anonymous Coward]

Because doing so is a source of revenue for them and has been for decades now.

I agree with you completely.

I've made money for decades by selling underage Thai girls to Japanese businessmen, and it's high time that it is fully legalized. After all, it's my business, and everybody knows that underage Thai girls don't have souls anyway.

Re:Its' not that difficult

[tinman1]

your comment about SS#'s is disingenous. While they may require SS#'s, there are restrictions on how the info is stored and to whom it is available - courtesy of Sarbanes-Oxley. It must be encrypted , granted that an employee could sell it or compromise the security the old-fashioned way - social engineering

Re:Its' not that difficult

[Jherek Carnelian]

your comment about SS#'s is disingenous.

The example of SS# is just that, an example. They also require address and name info which is not at all restricted - and what about the results of the credit history check - they ought to go right to /dev/null, but don't count on it.

And, for the record, I am not aware of the specific rules that Sarbox applies to SS#'s but given the history of such things in the USA, I have great faith that there at least a couple of loopholes that defang most, if not all, such protections. You know, such as a customer can waive sarbox protections and the company can require such a waiver before doing business or something equally silly along those lines.

Caveat Emptor

[plopez]

I know for a fact there is incorrect information about me circulating. Some of it I put out there myself :)

Anybody buying my info may be in for a disappointment.

This is not uncommon, there is no way to enforce consistency between the large information resellers. Having been in jobs where we bought mailing lists etc. from resellers I can whole heartedly say that most data resellers have no interest in quality. Quality is expensive, they just pump out the data. Which is why when we tried to contact the potential customers, some 25% of the addresses we had were wrong.

The question of people taking some data dump from questionable sources as the gospel and then using it for reasons which can screw up a person's life. Take the government drive to 'Total Information Awareness' (or what ever more palatble cover name they are now trying to slip it past people as), where a false positive can land a person in jail for an extended period of time without knowing what you are charged with or legal counsel.

Or less extreme, you may never be able to borrow for a house.

AFAIAC, my personal information is my property. Unfortunately in the US, it is a considered a common resource, with all the problems associated with a common resource.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

I know for a fact there is incorrect information about me circulating

You remind me of a couple of things:

I did a credit check on myself during the free period that we get here in GA. One of the credit bureaus still had me living in Florida! Dumb asses! As a result of their incompetence, I couldn't verify my own identity to get my free report. Interesting isn't it?

The other thing, lying about your SSN for credit or government is illegal, otherwise, it doesn't matter - even medical doesn't need it. How do I know? Well, unless it's for credit or for government stuff (Taxes especially) I either plead stupid or just "accidently" write down the wrong SSN. Oops! So far, nobody has ever called me on it, including the medical folks! It's bullshit! People are just collecting it because they can.

The marketing folks have this saying: If you want the information; just ask for it. Most people will just turn it over without even asking.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[TheAdventurer]

I do this too. I give a completely false and ridiculous set of information to almost everything I'm involved with, as long as it's not so important as to get me in trouble.

I know there's a company out there convinced that there's a 91 year old CEO of a porn empire who makes $15,000 a year and lives in South Dakota. Yeah that would be me.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[Scarletdown]

The other thing, lying about your SSN for credit or government is illegal, otherwise, it doesn't matter - even medical doesn't need it. How do I know? Well, unless it's for credit or for government stuff (Taxes especially) I either plead stupid or just "accidently" write down the wrong SSN. Oops! So far, nobody has ever called me on it, including the medical folks! It's bullshit! People are just collecting it because they can.

I've never tried this for serious stuff like medical and dental. But every time I have filled out a membership application for a video store, I always write in the block for my SSN 'PRIVACY ACT'. It's my subtle way of saying that "Unless you are contributing to my retirement, my SSN is none of your fucking business."

Surprisingly, no one has ever given me any hassles over refusing to give out this info.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[polv0]

I am a data mining consultant for insurance companies, and I specialize in part in assembling external sources of data for use in predictive modeling. I have seen the other side of how useful this data can be for individual companies, marketplaces and society as a whole.

For example, consider personal credit for automobile insurance - one of Choicepoint's major markets. It's not suprising that a person with a credit score in the 500s, who hasn't paid a bill on time since college is going to be a bad insurance risk. If you're totally irresponsible with your finances, you probably haven't got the rest of your life in order, and there's a higher chance reckless behavior or fraud. Regardless, statistical modeling can show that these people can be orders of magnitude more expensive to insure - and that's based on analysis of data sets with millions of insureds.

With credit-scoring, those drivers can be identified and charged a premium commensurate with their risk. Without it, you me and every other responsible driver has to subsidize their behavior. Not only isn't that fair, but it gives the person no incentive to improve their behavior. Credit-scores are only one of many variables used in these models, and overall, their use in pricing has dramatically lowered the cost of insurance, and the frequency of accidents.

Certainly, I'm concerned about the security breaches that have occurred at these vendors, and the quality of the data is often a serious problem. But I hope the regulation of the industry doesn't throw the baby out with the bath-water.

Pay Attention: YOU own your own data

[jdigital]

Check out Attention Trust. These guys are onto something. Recently Bezos from Amazon was asked (I'm paraphrasing) "So, who owns my purchase history?", the answer being "Well, you own a copy. And we own a copy.". Think about that.

Direct marketers have developed the art and science of buying and selling personal data. But when you think about it, you should really be able to control that flow. If you want, you should be able to set your price, if you are interested in selling at all.

Disclaimer: I work for a company that upholds the Attention Trust principles.

Re:Pay Attention: YOU own your own data

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why when asked for a zip code, I always say "that'll be 20% discount, please"... or "sure, I'll trade it for your phone number", if the casher looks are worth it. :-P

Re:Pay Attention: YOU own your own data

[wfeick]

Every time this subject comes up, I want to try a ballot measure here in California. The idea is to force accountability about where they got my data from. I should be able to go in and audit not only the information they have on me, but also where they got it from. Similarly, anyone who sends me direct mail must include a traceback of where they got my information. This likely would be something like "ChoicePoint - CitiBank" or "Choicepoint - {Citibank, AT&T}", although realistically it would be "ChoicePoint - {every compnay I do business with}".

The idea is that every piece of junk mail that gets sent to me should clearly list which companies that I do business with are turning around and selling my information. I suspect this would provide some back pressure on companies, not just through shame but also because the added expense of tracking all this information. This will hopefully change the economics of junk mail such that they're forced to either abandon the practice or more accurately focus their efforts. Either way, I'd get less junk mail.

The alternate thought is to embrace junk mail and do everything I can to receive as much of it as possible, then burn it as a way to heat my home.

Re:Pay Attention: YOU own your own data

[jdigital]

Imagine a formalized marketplace for that.

Re:Pay Attention: YOU own your own data

[Scarletdown]

That's why when asked for a zip code, I always say "that'll be 20% discount, please"... or "sure, I'll trade it for your phone number", if the casher looks are worth it.

My ZIP code isn't that big a deal, since it's shared with several thousand other people. However, I always refuse to give out my phone number to retailers (this usually happens at Toys R Us.) I used to just lie and say I don't have one. But now, I just outright politely say that I prefer not to give out that information. As always, the cashiers are quite understanding at my reluctance to give my number, and that has occasionally generated brief discussions about telemarketers and the National Do Not Call list.

Re:Pay Attention: YOU own your own data

[Anonymous Coward]

The zip code business is more like a matter of principle to me. Damn it, they want to make money off my info (trivial amounts, sure, but still...), they better pay for it what *I* think it is worth. No payment - no info. On the bright side, I don't even have to lie about not having a home phone number.

Now, how do I get the other datamining scum to pony up - or stop using my info..?

Sure they can sell my data

[hrieke]

But cut me in for 10% of the sale for general information and see my price list for more detailed data.

If they don't want to cut me in, then they can't sell my data.

Re:Sure they can sell my data

[Anonymous Coward]

10 million customers, $10,000, Now attmept to go collect your 0.0001 cents.

Corporate Double-Standard

[Vicissidude]

Actually, if you reverse your argument and apply it to corporations, then you see they have a huge double-standard as well. They want access to all our private information that by all rights belongs to us. And they want it for free. And they want to be able to buy and sell it at will. Further, they have actually gotten everything they wanted.

However, corporations go apeshit if you suggest that we should have access to all of their private information that belongs to them. They go even more apeshit if you then go out and sell that information. And even more, they bitch and moan and lobby to further restrict access to that information.

Re:Corporate Double-Standard

[DeafByBeheading]

"I'm driven with a mission from God... I feel God's words coming to me..." - George Bush Jr, delusional wacko

Delusional wacko... or Blues Brother?

Oh wait... I guess you're right.

Apples and Oranges

[umbrellasd]

How does the information gathered and sold by data brokers differ from the information collected and sold by a private investigator, or is there even a real difference?

You seek out and pay a private investigator a substantial fee to obtain information about one or a small group of individuals. A data broker seeks you out and offers you similar information about a large group of individuals for a very tiny $/head fee. Yes, there is a real difference.

It's mine, all mine!

[FreeBSD evangelist]

I believe all personal information should be the property of whomever is being profiled. You could =sell= your information to EquiFax et. al., but they couldn't use it if you didn't.

Re:It's mine, all mine!

[amliebsch]

I don't believe anybody should be able to "own" facts. That's all we're talking about. Facts. Statistics. You can't own knowledge.

Re:It's mine, all mine!

[mOdQuArK!]

To be consistent then, you also do not like the concept of IP? (Not criticising, just checking for consistency :-)

Re:It's mine, all mine!

[amliebsch]

It's not the same, so I don't see any inconsistency.

You can own the right to use a specific mark (trademark). But trademarks have no signficant knowledge value.

You can own the copyright to a specific work that you create - this could even be a collection of facts, as long as there is some editorial value added. But just because you own the copyright of, say, an atlas, doesn't mean that you own the knowledge of the geography! You can't sue somebody for violation of your copyright because they in turn sell that knowledge (as distinguished from the maps themselves). Another example: I learn law from law books. But copyright cannot prevent me from using that knowledge to bill legal clients, because the knowledge and facts contained in that copyrighted work cannot themselves be owned.

Finally, patents allow you to own the right to profit from some invention. But note: the knowledge encompassed by those patents is publicly available, and mere facts and knowledge can not be patented in the first place.

Therefore, I do not believe there is any conflict between my (limited) support of IP and my belief (and the legal reality) that facts and knowledge cannot be owned. I think this is important, too - that facts cannot be owned has been a major factor in strong First Amendment protections of free speech.

Re:It's mine, all mine!

[mOdQuArK!]

Bummer, it looks like you've rationalized your hypocrisy (yes, this is a criticism).

Aside from trademarks (which I consider to be more of an identity & fraud issue than "intellectual property"), copyright & patent law are most definitely an attempt to institutionalize control of what people can do with concepts & ideas. You are merely playing with semantics when you try to separate the definition of "facts & knowledge" from the ways that they can be expressed. If the latter is not protected, then the former is a useless distinction.

Re:It's mine, all mine!

[amliebsch]

Well, at least I took the time to lay out a logical argument, rather than just saying "you're wrong!", insulting your intelligence, and imputing motives of bad faith to you.

Looks like I've been trolled.

I mostly agree with that.

[khasim]

Your approval should be REQUIRED before any private firm/individual accesses your data. And mostly, this is already the case. Any credit apps (even movie rental agreements) allow them to check your info.

The only time this should not apply is with a court order.

Now, one step further. You should also approve who collects this information. I don't care if the bank has my bank records on file (including debit card purchases). I do care if some private company is collecting all my info so it can turn a profit selling it (even with my approval).

I know all the arguments about how centralizing the info allows improved credit ratings and such. They're all bullshit. The number of bankruptcies show that.

Re:I mostly agree with that.

[aiken_d]

I'm with you in principle, but like they say, the devil is in the details.

How would you handle private investigators? Should I be able to contract someone to watch what you have for breakfast and report back to me? How about paying a waiter at the restaurant to tell me what you had for breakfast?

I'm all for personal privacy, and I would have a big grin on my face if a meteor hit the ChoicePoint offices. However, I'm wary of the knee-jerk "we need legislation to combat this scourge" response. Are we talking about outlawing the collection of information, or the dissemination of it, or both? And where do you draw the line?

If we're outlawing the collection of information, a whole lot of things get a lot mroe complicated (medical records, for instance). If we're outlawing the dissemination, even more things get complicated (you'd better not tell *anyone* *anything* about *anyone* you know, or it's the pokey for you).

My personal hope is that the market catches up and realizes that vendors like ChoicePoint are 1) inaccurate, and 2) a leading cause of the problems that they purport to solve. I'm skeptical that will happen, but I can hope. And, as more people become aware of the problem, maybe consumers will help the market by providing economic incentive to companies not to sell info.

But I'm very skeptical of any kind of legislative solution that limits peoples' ability to either collect information or sell collections of information. Because that's what we're talking about, right?

Cheers
-b

We allowed it to happen with "Credit Bureaus"

[erroneus]

The industry of collecting personal information was truly created when this started to happen. The laws regulating the business were established in response, but they only served to legalize their action rather than to stop their abuse. I fear that if people start to complain more, the response will be the same -- that they legalize it and the abuse will persist in a more 'controlled and regulated way.' Controlled and regulated abuse is still abuse.

Not only should we ban such data collection, we should ban the 'credit' industry as it exists today. It openly abuses the Social Security system in a way that is definitely unlawful and has become so entrenched in daily business practices that now virtually every business tracking individuals relies on our personal serial numbers.

I'm completely against the abuse of the social security number and I am mildly amused at the possibility that "social security" could go away in the future... what number could they use to track people if they do away with the system? Fascinating isn't it? I hope more attention is paid to this issue [SSN abuse and personal information selling] and that people will take a lesson from what has happened already and work to see that the practice is outlawed, not 'regulated.'

Re:We allowed it to happen with "Credit Bureaus"

[ottffssent]

More often than you might initially suppose you can get away with not providing a SSN.

First off, just leave the line blank, and don't comment on it. Often people just assume you've filled out their paperwork and don't actually check. You can also enter a number starting with 9.

If anyone notices and complains, ask what they need it for. Demand to know why they are reporting your lease to the Social Security Administration. When they look at you strangely, explain that's the only reason they need your SSN. Continue in this vein. Offer to leave a larger deposit, or otherwise sidestep the issues they bring up as justification for needing your SSN. Ask about the business' data retention, protection, and life-cycle policies. Cheerfully give them your SSN upon receipt of a signed and notarized letter from the president, CEO, CFO, or other high-up in the company personally guaranteeing the safety of your SSN, with appropriate financial penalties for its unauthorized use or dissemination. Note: I've never gotten such a letter, though that approach has worked in other situations.

If you're dealing with a small business, and steps 1 and 2 don't help, you pretty much have to cave or go elsewhere. If dealing with a larger business where the people you antagonized in step 2 won't actually be processing the paperwork, give a "SSN" that starts with 9. It's not a SSN, so you're not committing fraud, you're simply making use of existing law allowing pseudonyms and such for privacy. This assumes, of course, that you're not hiding past bankruptcies, or intending to commit fraud in the future, etc.

Most folks don't even use your SSN; of those that do, few actually need it; of those that do, few consider it important enough to bother with if you put up a fuss.

Re:We allowed it to happen with "Credit Bureaus"

[Anonymous Coward]

If they key the info into a computer, this won't work. The credit application software at the store I work at knows the difference between a taxpayer id number and a ssn. An application can't be processed with a taxpayer id number.

in Capitalist America

[ne0n]

It's OK to sell anything these days.
Personally, I'm a whole lot more offended that people like Rumsfeld & the Bush family get rich on oil wars and manufacturing hype about avian flus.
Put into perspective, why is selling information any more wrong than killing thousands of innocent people for a few bucks?
Go ahead and mod me down, but at least think about it first.

Re:in Capitalist America

[amliebsch]

There are some problems with your reasoning:

1. The avian flu actually is a serious issue that should not be ignored.

2. Bush is divested, so oil company profits do not provide him with additional income.

3. Notwithstanding #2, there are other, independent grounds for killing people other than money.

4. Not all who were killed were innocents.

5. Notwithstanding #1-#5, it is a logical fallacy to reason that the existence of larger wrongs negates the existence of lesser wrongs.

The way to the Darkside...

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

If Government starts doing the collecting that will the intial steps towards monitoring of its citizens. And, unlike the private sector, there's really no accountability. Just look at what happens to people who are mistakenly put on the "No-Fly" list. They're fucked unless they have political connections. And even then it can be a real hassle - Ted Kennedy anyone? At least with a corp., you can bring a civil case and maybe a criminal. Government, years of hassles - even if you get permission to sue.

No sir, I'll take corporate over government anyday.

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[CosmeticLobotamy]

The government already monitors its citizens, and it'd be a bit silly to think they couldn't get any dirt on you that any company has if they wanted it. And you'd have to try pretty hard to get less accountability than you get with the private sector.

The hassle issue would depend on the implementation, and as long as we're doing it from scratch, I'm voting for a not-evil implementation.

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

And you'd have to try pretty hard to get less accountability than you get with the private sector.

Not to start a flame war here, please tell me exactly how government is accountable? for example

Who actually gets fired over this? Who compensates this poor bastard?

Or here's another name: Richard Jewel. The FBI fucks this guy over, the press falls in line, he wins a liability suit with the press (a million or so), the FBI gets away with fucking up this guys life. And they're still doing it. Look at what to this guy. If the FBI were a corp they'd be out of business right now or at least have paid out billions in settlements.

No sir, I still hold to my original oppinion

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[Anonymous Coward]

Abuses of power are a reality of government. I'm not saying I support them, or like them, but until we figure out "something else", it's what we are stuck with. Governments are there to "protect" society, if it thinks your a threat to society you're fucked. Personal rights truely don't matter on an individual level, just on a societal level.

What does this have to do with anything? Simple, corps aren't here to protect society, unless by society you mean their majority shareholders. All they care about, ever, is money, it's their blood. Every time they do something "nice" it's with an eye on the bottom line, tax breaks, good PR, etc. The truth is they have to, because they have to protect their shareholders.

Sure government sucks, but frankly corps suck more. One will screw the invididual, the other will screw everyone as long as it helps their shareholders.

I would like to mention, that I REALLY hope we can find that "something else" soon.

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

I would like to mention, that I REALLY hope we can find that "something else" soon.

Agreed.

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Not to start a flame war here, please tell me exactly how government is accountable?

It's not. But I didn't say it was going to be more accountable, just that corporations aren't in any significant way, either. There are, of course, cases where both were held accountable for something, but they're both few and far between.

The two situations are pretty much the same. I'm just more comfortable having 1/150,000,000 of a say in what happens with that data than the 0 say I get with a corporation.

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[rtb61]

Don't forget the only thing that forces corporations to be accountable in any way shape or form are governments, so whats your point. If you are unhappy about the performance of your government become politically active it does make a difference.

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[gordonb]

And, unlike the private sector, there's really no accountability.

Actually, just the opposite. You have no ability to make a corporation remove or correct your information besides threat of a lawsuit. With governmental data, not only are lawsuits possible but there is a legal and regulatory framework. That is, in the US, you almost always have a means, specified in regulations, to make corrections or opt in/out of the system.

Now, whether these work ideally is another question. And, by the way, there is a third way to get satisfaction - political connections. Do not underestimate what a call to your Senator or Representative can accomplish. This route is more effective if you are politically active or a donor. That may strike some as "pay for play" but, after all, we all should be active. It's cheaper than a lawyer and lawsuit, in any case.

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[tombeard]

Not that I think much of any of this, and I do not condone any of it...
BUT - at least the companys have an interest in getting it right. Don't want to miss an opportunity ya' know. The government could care less when they screw it up; why not, doesnt cost them anything, maybe boosts their "success" rate.

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[Darby]

If the FBI were a corp they'd be out of business right now or at least have paid out billions in settlements.

I agree with your point up to this point.

You have far more faith in our justice system than I do.
If they had billions to pay in settlements, then they would simply buy their way out of trouble.
Sure, you can point to a few examples where the justice system worked recently, but those where it doesn't far outweigh them and it's only going to get worse.
For those who doubt that, I challenge you to come up with a sane, rational, mechanism which has even a feeble possibility of working by which it could get better.

The FBI and various other federal agencies have long, sordid histories of being used against the American public and their abilities to do this are getting better all the time.

We're already well on the road past 1984.

There is a feeble chance that the next election could be a pivotal point which could bring some sanity back, but it's over with 100% certainty if another Republican gets elected.
It's equally 100% certain if another Democrat gets elected.

The only possible thing that could save this country and the world from complete totalitarianism is if a person with actual integrity gets elected president and appeals to the people to immediately yank all of their congresspeople (with the possible exception of Russ Feingold) and replace them with honest citizens with no ties to either party and further take all of this big brother bullshit they've been pushing and mandate that it all only be used against the members of congress.
"With great power comes great responsibility."

Of course, who watches the watchers.

We are well and truly fucked at this point.

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[Darby]

BUT - at least the companys have an interest in getting it right. Don't want to miss an opportunity ya' know.

And that opportunity is called selling your info to the government who isn't allowed to collect it themselves.

That is why it is so important to have the public and private sectors divided as much as church and state (is supposed to be).

We fought a big war a while back against exactly what is happening here. It's called Fascism, and it is where America has been for some time now.

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[rtechie]

If Government starts doing the collecting that will the intial steps towards monitoring of its citizens. And, unlike the private sector, there's really no accountability.

Unless you believe that all US elections are completely rigged (I only think they're MOSTLY rigged), you have a lot more accountability with government than with the private sector. At least in theory. And while it might be illegal to sue the government in many cases, it's also totally impractical to sue large corporations in many cases.

Re:The way to the Darkside...

[gstoddart]

If Government starts doing the collecting that will the intial steps towards monitoring of its citizens. And, unlike the private sector, there's really no accountability.

Except when Government makes use of these same databases they're not supposed to have access to, and when they pass laws so that anyone leaking this stuff doesn't have any punishment.

Geee, nobody might infer that the government was eroding protections so they could get better access to this data.

Or, they really do believe their lobbyists that this somehow increases your privacy and right to data security. For the government to effectively say that "doing this is naughty" and remove all punishment for it is a joke, because there is no incentive to ensure you don't leak this stuff, it's now a simple administrative error.

You can be arrested for hacking into information you shouldn't have, but you can't be reprimanded for failing to protect information you were required to protect.

harvesting

[sedyn]

I think this question has been posed so /.ers* that say information can be sold will have their emails entered into a spam list.

*/.ers that have posted their email in any way publically.

3 Words

[t_allardyce]

Data Protection Act.

Re:Who Do you Trust More

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

what did choicepoint have?

Civil torts, bad PR, and grandstanding politicians who will "do" something about it. Of course, quite a few people will have to get fucked over so that there's enough of a stink for the Politicians to step in. Other than, sue,sue,sue,and sue!

Baby Steps to Totalitarianism

[umbrellasd]

If Government starts doing the collecting that will the intial steps towards monitoring of its citizens.

What country do you live in again? Is it the one with the Patriot Act? Or the one with federally mandated agencies that are granted sweeping privileges to protect the state with social, economic, and racial profiling?

Re:Baby Steps to Totalitarianism

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

Most of the data collection (for mining purposes), as mentioned by other posters, is done mostly by private companies. Our Government is doing this to get around the 4th ammendment. I guess I'm saying that you're right.

Re:Baby Steps to Totalitarianism

[MightyMartian]

I've always felt the proper to handle this is to force private firms to pay about $200 per personal factoid to the individual. A nice big fat lump sum royalty. If they don't pay then they must remove the item, or risk substantial fines and imprisonment for the company directors and senior management.

Information

[cnerd2025]

Elected officials like to be reelected, and someone has to fund their campaigns. In return, legislation about regulating invasion of privacy is ignored. I agree with the "general public" that the information is not legal to be sold, just as "trade secrets" are illegal to be sold. My beef is this: if my information is sold without my explicit knowledge multiple times based on just one registration card, how can we be confident that the votes being cast by our voting machines are not being tampered with by the proprietary software? And another thing, since my information is being sold, I feel I am entitled to a cut.

Is there another choice?

[JimJinkins]

In a small town information brokering is not a feasible business, but personal information is shared. Examples:

"He pays his bills on time."

"He pays his bills, but usually late."

He is a good plumber, but he will not answer a call during deer season."

"He is a good guy and a lousy electrician."

In an urban society, reputations established by gossip is not available. But reputation is still necessary for people to do business with each other.

Whether information is collected and sold by a business or collected by a government and sold for money or taxes is another issue. The information has to come from someone.

Whoever provides the information will screw it up at least part of the time.

Note: There are also disadvantages to the small town model. Consider prejudice and spite.

Re:Is there another choice?

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

Interesting perspective. Also, considering your example, the brokers have a larger sample. But (yes, there's a "BUT"), the brokers also have a much larger audience, if you will, and our Government uses them for information. That really torks me. In a small town, you can make amends, with the information brokers, you're fucked for a very long time. And, unlike a small town where everybody knows your name, someone across the country will base their opinion on some broker's selective information.

Re:Is there another choice?

[polv0]

You are exactly right, and in a modern society with millions of people interacting, we can leverage the available information to optimize interactions. Credit-scoring is precisely that. The next time you go and buy a home, marvel at the fact that you can even get a loan. A 100 years ago a bank would have no clue as to how trusworthy an individual you were, and without a significant amount of capital or collateral, you couldn't obtain financing. This was a foundation of the seperation of classes. Without credit, it's extroadinarly hard to ride out the major fluctuations in cash flow experienced by people near the poverty line. The wealthy can lose 50% of their income and still put food on the table, but do that to someone makeing $20k a year and they are completely margenalized.

I feel strongly that this is an issue that the Slashdot readership over-reacts to out of paranoia. Few large companies and governments are really "out to get us," but just like us they do screw things up here or there. After all, they are only human.

Re:Is there another choice?

[Anonymous Coward]

The next time you go and buy a home, marvel at the fact that you can even get a loan. A 100 years ago a bank would have no clue as to how trusworthy an individual you were, and without a significant amount of capital or collateral, you couldn't obtain financing.

Given that houses are hard to steal, and mortgages have reposession clauses if you don't pay, provided that the bank requires a down payment of 25%, it's nearly impossible for the bank to lose money on a mortgage. If you don't pay, they seize the house and sell it.

The bank only loses money if house prices crash rapidly, they overestimated the value of the house, the house burns down, or a natural disaster occurs. Banks usually require insurance and send their own agent to assess the property.

Apples and Oranges-Court Agent.

[Anonymous Coward]

A Private Investigator is also considered an extension of the legal system. A Data Broker is not.

doesn't exactly work like that...

[Anonymous Coward]

ignoring that you can't really copyright "facts" to begin with, there's an inherant flaw in this reasoning - most of the data they're selling are not created by you, but by your use of private resources. your credit history can't be owned by you because it wasn't collected by you. you create nothing when you use your credit card, the credit company is creating and maintaining that database.

public info yes private info w/ my blessing

[davidwr]

If they want to make a buck repackaging information that's publicly available to anyone at no cost, such as deed records and such, I have no problem with that. Yes, there are privacy implications but prohibiting the practice just means only outlaws will do it.

When it comes to things that are NOT publicly available to anyone without costs, I want them to ask me specifically EACH time they release a copy, and provide me with a for-the-cost-of-paper-and-postage copy each and every time they release a copy to someone that I haven't already inspected. I should have the right to say "no" to the release of that information, but with the understanding that if I refuse, the person who asked for the data may not do business with me or may not offer me favorable pricing.

Re:public info yes private info w/ my blessing

[c0d3h4x0r]

Yes, but the real issue is your (in)ability to see what the data broker is telling others about you. It doesn't matter if the information they have on file for you is of the "publicly available" type if it's still wrong and others are being misinformed about you.

Credit reporting == lower prices, more services

[G4from128k]

someone has to collect and distribute this stuff for things like background checks. are we suggesting the govt should do it instead of the private sector?

Very insightful comment and I'm glad it got upmodded.

As a consumer I'm really of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I hate that all this data is sitting out there. But on the otherhand, i realize its the price one pays to get a reasonable mortgage rate, credit cards on favorable terms, low insurance premiums, and a wide range of services at acceptable prices. Without accurate credit reporting, all businesses would need to increase prices to factor in the risk of loss and the added costs of extracting late payments.

As long as people expect businesses to take risks on them (lending money, providing service without up-front payment, entering into long-term service contracts, etc.), those businesses will want to collect information on the riskiness of those consumers. And if a consumer doesn't have an established relationship with a given business, then it makes sense that that business will need to ask other business that have done business with that consumer. And rather than have each business pester every other business with questions, it makes sense that other businesses would form to collect and sell consumer payment/risk data. Thus we get to the question of who should do this?

I fear that the government would be utterly incompetent at creating such a system, even if consumers did decide that all their purchase/payment history data should go to the government. The government would have little incentive to create accurate risk models. Because there is no a priori obvious way to estimate a given consumer's risk of non-payment, it's sensible to have multiple credit risk analysis companies each with their own scoring system. The final question is how should they do this?

What we need are better laws to ensure that the data is properly secured, properly vetted, fairly computed, and that consumers have some due process rights to contest erroneous data.

Re:Credit reporting == lower prices, more services

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Without accurate credit reporting, all businesses would need to increase prices to factor in the risk of loss and the added costs of extracting late payments.

Really? Maybe they could just get up off their asses and compete instead. With all of the time and effort banks and businesses spend in fondling joe consumer's privates before they do business with him, perhaps they've forgotton that unless they actually do business with him they won't make any money. The bank that is out there doing business instead of tut tutting over credit card overdrafts, will be the one that makes money. Business rewards risk, not playing it safe.

I fear that the government would be utterly incompetent at creating such a system, even if consumers did decide that all their purchase/payment history data should go to the government.

And what exactly makes you think that private industry will be any less incompetant? What exactly is it about private companies that will somehow make doing sonething "better"?

ChoicePoint essentially proved that private industry is no more capable of handling this data than anyone else. Bottom line is, they should never have had any of this. People's personal information is on a need to know basis, and ChoicePoint did not need to know.

If the banks want my information, then they can ask me for it up front, instead of all this skulking about with shady datamongers who would sell their grandmother's address to a rapist if the price was right.

Re:Credit reporting == lower prices, more services

[SilverspurG]

As long as people expect businesses to take risks on them those businesses will want to collect information on the riskiness of those consumers

Perfectly understandable.

it makes sense that other businesses would form to collect and sell consumer payment/risk data

This is the part under debate. I, and many others, do not feel that the sale of consumer information should be a business model at all. If some business wants to track information for business purposes let them do it internally and hold them accountable for every bit of information they collect.

They should treat consumer information databases the same way they treat stalking.

Re:Credit reporting == lower prices, more services

[Anonymous Coward]

If a company is allowed to gather information about us, should we than not be allowed to gather information about *them*.

Strangely enough, several of those companies would not give you the time-of-day, while they have no qualms about asking you how many times you had sex (with your wife) last week, because of "physical risk asessment".

Some time ago an Internet-site in my country gathered and displayed information about the aeroplane-fare companies (how many times their planes where suspect, needed repairs, where kept on the ground, or just crashed). That site was pulled off the air, as that kind of information was "not good" for the air-traveler.

I found that "funny" : any company is allowed to gather my personal data to do a risk-asessment, but an individual is not allowed to do the same the other way around (and could loose his/her *life* because of that non-information) ....

Do I consider that hypocritical ? Yes, I surely do.

Re:Credit reporting == lower prices, more services

[10101001 10101001]

They should treat consumer information databases the same way they treat stalking.

You mean wait until the person ends up getting a restraining order and winds up dead before really doing anything, and even then the restraining order is only useful as a hint on a possible suspect?

The best analogy I can think of is if a company were to leak your information, you to get a court order for them to do "clean up", and then having the court order as part of the proof to sue them when you credit score tanks because someone decided to misuse it. Ie, what you're suggesting isn't far off from what we have now.

Re:Credit reporting == lower prices, more services

[rtechie]

But on the otherhand, i realize its the price one pays to get a reasonable mortgage rate, credit cards on favorable terms, low insurance premiums, and a wide range of services at acceptable prices. Without accurate credit reporting, all businesses would need to increase prices to factor in the risk of loss and the added costs of extracting late payments.

This is simply WRONG. Creditors have been able to provide credit at favorable terms for milennia, "background checks" were irrelevent because the local nature of these economies you could easily talk to everyone a prospective debtor had ever MET. Debt isn't about making REASONABLE loans, what kind of revenue stream is that? You WANT people to never pay off loans because money is made from the interest payments on those loans. And it's absolutely critical that you keep your debtors too poor to pay off the loans.

The reason reason you see more debt being offered is COMPUTERS. In the past is was such a hassle keeping track of all this infomation accurately, AND tracking down debtors, made it pretty easy to simply walk out on debts, assuming no real estate was involved. Which is why loans required "collateral" in real property that couldn't easily run off.

Now with computer database tracking it's much harder for Joe Average to run from debts. It's not about a "good credit rating", that's a scam, it's about hunting you down. They're desperately trying to bring back debtor's prisons so they can buy slaves.

I fear that the government would be utterly incompetent at creating such a system

Becuse you're a right-wing nut and right wing nuts think the government is incompotent at everything. You want to turn the highway system, police, national parks, and the military over to private corporations.
Why not have the banks write the laws and do all the enforcement? Oh wait, that's what we're doing NOW! Fuck democracy, ogliarchical corporations are the only way to get ANYTHING done!

Re:Credit reporting == lower prices, more services

[Anonymous Coward]

And what exactly makes you think that private industry will be any less incompetant? What exactly is it about private companies that will somehow make doing sonething "better"?

It is not that private companies are better, just the government workers are worse. Go visit your local DMV and then decide if you want these people in charge of all your private information. I am sure that they are very nice people, but most of them are working there because they can't work anywhere else.

If the banks want my information, then they can ask me for it up front, instead of all this skulking about with shady datamongers who would sell their grandmother's address to a rapist if the price was right.

All people are completely trustworthy and would never give false information in order to get a better deal for themselves.

Re:Credit reporting == lower prices, more services

[plague3106]

But on the otherhand, i realize its the price one pays to get a reasonable mortgage rate, credit cards on favorable terms, low insurance premiums, and a wide range of services at acceptable prices.

I call bull.

Mortgages don't need your credit rating, they have a recourse if you don't pay. They can take your house. They are not going to lend you more than the house is worth. They may not make money, but they haven't lost any either because they have the house.

Credit cards are risky, i'll give you that one.

Everything else (insurance, utilities, optional services) have a similar recourse. After missing the first payment date, service is shut off. They lose a month and refuse to do business with you anymore.

You don't need outside companies to store credit info, companies can do it themselves.

You also never even mention that once a credit company gets something wrong, its nearly imposible to fix (prove that its not you, when they have not proof of who you are to begin with?), you open the door to identity theft, and thats on top of gov't snooping...

The costs to you of having someone being able to sell your info are much higher than any benifits.

Re:Credit reporting == lower prices, more services

[Foobar of Borg]

It's not about a "good credit rating", that's a scam, it's about hunting you down. They're desperately trying to bring back debtor's prisons so they can buy slaves.

There was already a lot of progress on this front with the recently enacted bankruptcy "reform", though I see that corporations still have a pretty easy time of declaring bankruptcy to get out the hassle of paying pensions.

It's not the fact that someone is collecting data.

[Anonymous Coward]

... but what they do with it. If the data is never used for anything, then it has no impact on you. When someone tries to do something with the data.....

Actually.....

[Anonymous Coward]

The Government DOES care. Remember the pentagon wanting to tie into commercial databases for intelligence gathering purposes? To suggest the military shouldn't spy on U.S. citizens within their own country is downright unpatriotic, and probably enough to get you quietly whisked away to an unnamed location for torture under the Patriot Act, all to protect your freedom.

Re:Actually.....

[bob_calder]

The company they were going to tie into is owned by Choicepoint who is owned by Lexis Nexis who is owned by Elsievier which is a foreign woned entity.

I think the issue is "Do we own our own information?"

In America....

[Larry_Dillon]

Why can a business collect and sell your personal information for profit?

Because America is first and formost PRO BUSINESS.

A Democracy? A "Christian Nation?" The Land of the Free(TM)? ...when it's convenient. But always pro business.

People have *always* sold information

[SalesEngineer]

The news, colleges, Google, spies, gurus on the mountain top, private investigators, documentary film makers, political advisors, Number 2 in The Village, the head of the "popular group" in high school, the hacker who knows all the backdoors, the creepy old guy in every horror film that knows all about the serial killer ...

How is this information any different? More personal, sure, but it is no different than any other paid information source. Information is easier to catalog than before, so it's just a bit easier to be intrusive.

The ChoicePoint scandal illustrated to the world how information gathering, and how that information can be exploited in the name of fraud, has changed over time. That type of data is a necessary evil in the world of credit cards & on-line shopping ... your payment history is the new collateral.

Hmmm...

[Castar]

The ethics of data brokers, the teeth of hens, the wings of pigs, the venom sacs of walruses....

Yeah.

Re:Many claim ChoicePoint helped steal 2000 electi

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm flamebait, guess we shouldn't help answer the question who is choicepoint.

Data Broker = PI?

[kramey]

In some states, Data Brokers are required to be licensed private investigators. In others it only depends on what kind of data they are brokering. Personally, I would prefer that my personal information remain personal unless I specifically choose to make it available. Although I've generally outgrown my admiration for Robert Heinlein, I appreciate one comment that he once made in a book: "When asked for personal information to be entered into a computer; lie!"

Best solution to this problem

[agahtan]

The best solution would be to provide consumers with the right to opt out of having their personal information disclosed to a third party. In other words, we need legislation that would prohibit a credit provider from being able to force a consumer to agree that they can disclose personal information they obtain from the credit application to a third party credit bureau or otherwise. If they can't get the information in the first place then we don't have to worry about what they are going to do with it and how well they will protect it.

What About Google Print

[maxxdogg]

I am wondering how this relates at all to Google Print. I hear a lot of people on this site praise Google and Google Print, saying how great it is for the authors for Google to index book contents. I would assume that many of those people would be a little upset if Google took public personal data and indexed that as well. Could I claim any sort of copyright on my personal information and block any service from using it without my consent? Just a thought...

Just use this data calculator

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we use the Data Calculator at the Swipe Toolkit.

We may not be able to control these companies but we can at least get our cut.

It's information about transactions not people

[Shannon Love]

Most the information under discussion is not information about people per se but rather information about transactions. Since a transaction takes two at least two entities it is an open question as to who owns the information about the transaction.

If I sell you something, do I have rights to the information that I sold you something? Why should either side of the transaction have to "forget" that the transaction ever took place? If the information about the transaction is itself valuable, why shouldn't either side be able to sell it?

I think the presumption that all information that includes data about a individual is the property of the individual is highly simplistic.

Re:It's information about transactions not people

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be NDA for each transaction... My personal data should be under a non-transferable license. I'll hire RIAA/MPAA laywer to sue for violation for $120,000 a piece.

Yet we still have lots of bankruptcies.

[khasim]

I'd agree with you if this information could be seen as resulting in fewer bankruptcies (organizations giving credit to bad risk cases). But I don't see that as being the case.

The problem is that there is very little risk to the collecting agency but a big risk to the individuals. The agencies don't really care if bad information gets on your report and you end up paying more for a loan than you really need to.

Now, if they had to go to your bank for the info on your account status and the credit card companies for info on how often you paid your bills, that would be different. If I didn't like the info the bank gave out, I could switch banks. The bank risks losing a customer. If my account is a good account, that's important to them. If it's a bad account, it's not that important to them.

And the bank should be checking with me before releasing any information.

"Privacy-sensitive information"

[Jerf]

We need a new form of IP, "Privacy-sensitive information". (Full explanation at that link, too complex to put here.)

The odds of this happening any time soon are of course nearly zero.

Re: ha!

[s388]

no way dave:

if you refuse, you'll still get favorable pricing. the second you say "hey, i decided i want to give you my money."

kind of sad, in a way. but also useful. occasionally.

i agree completely with everything else you said, though!

difference?

[loraksus]

How does the information gathered and sold by data brokers differ from the information collected and sold by a private investigator

Well, first off, data collected by a PI is more correct, given that someone actually spent the time to research it (I realize this is sort of idealistic, since a lot of PI's just search on the net, but let's be idealistic for a bit. I'll be a bitter sarcastic prick in the latter half of my post)

Choicepoint, and Lexsis (and to a certain extent, the credit bureaus), etc are just data aggregator which basically means they run a couple searches on the net, throw it all in one place and throw marketing pixie dust all over it. They don't care if the information they sell is wrong because they have essentially been granted the ability to slander someone and not face any liability because of it.
As a result, accuracy is dismally bad, especially given the fact that these companies are pushed by their customers to provide "negative data" i.e. an excuse as to why you shouldn't hire Bob Jones, or lend money to Jill Smith (or perhaps what interest rate to give on a home loan) or, while we are at it, to deny someone the ability to fly. Most of the time even basic checking (like "was the person in this record alive when something happened")

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if their data is correct - a company investigating a potential employee is not going to investigate to see whether a black mark in a Lexis report is actually true, nor is the Federal government going to verify before throwing someone on the no or "latex glove" fly list.
I don't think we even have to go into the fact that it is virtually impossible to correct data in their databases either.

As for ethics, these shitbags who engage in slander on a grand scale have none. They will continue to send out incorrect information even after being notified and will throw up layers of bureaucracy in order to prevent you from changing the data.
Nor do the credit bureaus, car dealerships, et al, who will knowingly use bad data and will inflate the cost of a loan on a home or a car). Of course, they bribe politicians - especially politicians whose constituents are ignorant morons - so nothing will change and we will continue getting screwed until something changes.

As for the worries of identity theft - you should be far more worried about companies who you knowingly give your data to - i.e. any tax preparation company.

I've mentioned this before, but as a $9/hour tech support monkey working for TaxCut a couple of years ago, I had access to every single return filed by EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAD FILED A TAX RETURN WITH H&R BLOCK SINCE 1998. I was able to see your income, your address, phone, names of your kids, the amount you paid on your mortgage, the names and addresses of your employers, etc, etc, etc.
A single person, assuming they were properly motivated, could of have created the largest breach of customer data in history - or made millions if they played it right and used some data in a credit card fraud scheme .

Tech support is one of the easiest fields to get a job in and normally requires no background check or even a drug screen. In fact, the reason that we haven't heard of many such breaches is because most of the people who work in there are stoned or drunk.
If anyone is interested, I believe that Stream in Beaverton, Oregon will be hiring for the TaxCut "team" for the 2005 tax year in the next couple of weeks. This would be an excellent opportunity for any organized crime groups to make some money, or for some anarchist group to cause some chaos if, say, 50 million tax returns were thrown onto a binaries newsgroup or onto bittorrent trackers in a foreign country. I'm afraid that only such a breach - and the resulting fraud - would convince the morons who live in this country that something needs to change.

Re:difference?

[SilverspurG]

<i>I'm afraid that only such a breach - and the resulting fraud - would convince the morons who live in this country that something needs to change.

There would be a witch hunt. Some people (actually involved or not) would be apprehended. Several would be charged. After a lengthy and costly court battle complete with media pomp and display one or two would be convicted and never heard from again. Politicians would shuffle and propose a thousand new mandates. Five or ten would attract the interest of special interest lobbying groups who represent businesses who see how they could manipulate those new proposals for profit.

In general the citizens lose more money, gain more bureaucracy, and everything gets worse no matter how it goes.

I *am* original... the facts about me define me

[rsborg]

Compilations of facts might be copyrightable, but are not necessarily so. In order to be copyrightable, a compilation must possess originality, i.e. a creative selection and arrangement of components. All facts is not a creative selection. Ordinary arrangements, e.g. chronological, or alphabetical, is not a creative arrangement. It is fairly difficult to construct a copyrightable factual compilation (mostly it is a matter of creative selection).

Please explain to me how "all facts related to me" as a compilation is not original. I'd say that it's almost the definition of originality, ie, other people may have similar facts, but if they had the same facts, I'd argue that they copied me... just like the musical notes relating to a song.

Given that, do you agree that I should be able to copyright my data as a compilation?

Re:I *am* original... the facts about me define me

[cpt kangarooski]

Please explain to me how "all facts related to me" as a compilation is not original.

A compilation that includes everything does not possess originality with regards to selection. The selection was unthinking and all-inclusive. It is not a creative work of authorship, as is constitutionally required for copyright protection to attach. Simply, there has to be a creative choice to include some facts and to not include other ones.

From the Feist case:

[O]riginality is not a stringent standard; it does not require that facts be presented in an innovative or surprising way. It is equally true, however, that the selection and arrangement of facts cannot be so mechanical or routine as to require no creativity whatsoever. The standard of originality is low, but it does exist. ...

The selection, coordination, and arrangement of Rural's white pages do not satisfy the minimum constitutional standards for copyright protection. As mentioned at the outset, Rural's white pages are entirely typical. Persons desiring telephone service in Rural's service area fill out an application and Rural issues them a telephone number. In preparing its white pages, Rural simply takes the data provided by its subscribers and lists it alphabetically by surname. The end product is a garden-variety white pages directory, devoid of even the slightest trace of creativity.

Rural's selection of listings could not be more obvious: it publishes the most basic information -- name, town, and telephone number -- about each person who applies to it for telephone service. This is "selection" of a sort, but it lacks the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression. Rural expended sufficient effort to make the white pages directory useful, but insufficient creativity to make it original.

While the white pages phone book in the Feist case was uncopyrightable, other kinds of phone books have been found to be copyrightable. For example, in the Key Publications case, a phone book that only contained listings that the author thought would be useful for the local Chinese community was copyrightable as a compilation, since the author had creatively chosen some listings to include and others to exclude.

Given that, do you agree that I should be able to copyright my data as a compilation?

Absolutely not.

First, the facts are uncopyrightable. Second, a compilation of all facts about you is uncopyrightable. Third, even if a compilation were copyrightable, the people who you do not want using your data are not copying the facts from the compilation, they are obtaining facts through observation of you, and copyright cannot be used to prevent them from finding out the same facts you compiled from other sources. Fourth, even when compiled in a copyrightable compilation, the facts themselves are uncopyrightable, and free for others to copy from your compilation itself. Fifth, the act of living and thereby producing facts (e.g. eating a hotdog produces the fact that you ate a hotdog at a particular time, date, and place, in a particular manner, etc.) is not an act of authorship resulting in a fixed original work of authorship, and so merely living does not produce a compilation of facts, nor any other copyrightable work.

This is a really stupid, pointless line of discussion, because there is no way that the brain-dead notion of copyrighting the facts of one's life so as to ensure privacy will ever, ever, ever work.

Re:I *am* original... the facts about me define me

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

then short of (another) crazy idea involving liberal use of EMPs on whole slices of the US (for now, anyway), is there any way in hell we can fight this sort of thing by end-running around those worthless sacks of shit in the government? at least i can begin to see that i was just dreaming.

Re:I *am* original... the facts about me define me

[cpt kangarooski]

Leave civilization.

Only use cash. Avoid owning things that have titles to them, e.g. land or cars. Don't use banks. Don't have accounts with businesses or other organizations, e.g. library cards, discount cards at stores or supermarkets, a phone, etc. Avoid having people remember you. Don't get arrested or take a job that involves records filed about you. Earn so little income that you don't need to file tax returns. Don't have a job. Don't seek professional medical care. Don't have a passport, driver's license, government-issued ID, etc.

You get the idea.

On the whole, if you have to either live like Ted Kaczynski, or work on a political solution by lobbying the government, you may well find that the latter is easier and more likely to work.

Re:I *am* original... the facts about me define me

[UncleFluffy]

First, the facts are uncopyrightable.

Ah, but what if I created a non-factual piece of data about myself and it got entered into their system ... I think I have a plan!

Re:I *am* original... the facts about me define me

[cpt kangarooski]

Nah. Generally if you create a fiction but present it as a fact, it's treated as such.

Re:I *am* original... the facts about me define me

[UnapprovedThought]

Thank you. Very informative (except for the comment about this being a stupid line of discussion. Not true unless you think people need to be kept in the dark about it).

Well, your argument didn't convince me that consumers' rights are being fully considered. You said:

Simply, there has to be a creative choice to include some facts and to not include other ones.

OK. Once upon a time, I selectively decided to purchase one specific hot dog product instead of another. Instead of using one credit card to pay for it, I artistically whipped out another and rendered my digitized signature with a unique flourish. This was recorded.

Then I traveled to another location and creatively decided to pay for an electronics part in cash. That was not recorded. Thus I decided what to leave on my credit record "storyline" and what to leave out.

The next day, to add to the biography, I creatively considered several areas to move to, and which address, and moved to one of them, crossing storied mountains and rivers. I chose from among many numbers and streets, for instance I may have moved to a #80 address or a #404 -- my choice. How often do I make payments and on what day? That could also be a choice. All of these things put together can read like a storyline, similar to how a book author chooses the names of characters, events, streets and towns. Those who observe me must write down the actions as I have performed them. It is as if I am dictating to them a message and they are writing it down.

A non-fiction story is a compilation of facts. A fictional story is a compilation of some mixture of fact and imagination. Both are subject to copyright. People can take excerpts, but (correct me if I'm wrong) they cannot obtain the entire work. If giving out one number allows someone to obtain the entire work, would that not be considered a violation of copyright? (Even if you disagree, that's OK, read on.)

Your credit record is a document you are writing either by action or inaction. There is no end to those credit-repair agencies which claim they are able to help generate a fictitious or semi-fictitious storyline to make your "online character" look more creditworthy. They are spinning a tale for someone else to read, which you would otherwise be the author of. Book authors can also allow "ghost writers" to handle part of the work for that purpose, yet the author can still own the copyright.

Copyright aside, someone has already been issued a provisional patent on a storyline as in this recent story. (So even if copyrights are out of the picture there are plenty of other precedents being set.)

OTOH, to argue the reverse, if the results of my decisions are mere facts and not part of a biographical storyline that I am writing, then I could also conclude that:

• a movie is merely a very large integer and as such, the number contains no creativity inside it whatsoever
• A song is just a smaller integer, similarly consisting of bytes placed end to end.
• A book is a yet smaller integer, and to prove it I could reduce it down to its factors, just like any other number.
• etc....

A movie, song, or book is reducible to a fact, then. The creative part of the movie is what they performed while in the course of their business (e.g. shooting it in their studios). They did so under constraints of time and money, just as I have constraints of time and money in producing my storyline. That very long integer they produced as a result, well, that's just a "fact," just like the data I produce through my decisions is merely a "fact." I may choose to view a factual report of their activities through my viewer of choice, but I will probably be obliged to pay them for that privilege even though copyr

Re:I *am* original... the facts about me define me

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, your argument didn't convince me that consumers' rights are being fully considered.

It's supposed to convince you that consumers' privacy rights aren't being considered at all with regards to copyright. The purpose of copyright is to promote the public interest by encouraging the creation and publication of works with an economic incentive, and placing those works in the public domain as rapidly as possible, and as close to the public domain as possible during any term of copyright.

Protecting consumer privacy is not even on the radar.

If you're interested in consumer privacy, I would suggest getting some laws passed that are specifically concerned with that.

OK. Once upon a time, I selectively decided to purchase one specific hot dog product instead of another. Instead of using one credit card to pay for it, I artistically whipped out another and rendered my digitized signature with a unique flourish. This was recorded.

Why is it that so many of the geeks here think that they can game the system; that they're more brilliant than the everyone in the legal profession and that their smart-ass cleverness will be rewarded?

I think it's too much interaction with computers. The judicial system is not a computer. It is run by people, at every step, and they are not so easily fooled or willing to tolerate people who think they're oh-so clever.

Your example fails because you are still trying to protect all the facts about you. Whether fact one involves a Visa, and fact two involves a MasterCard doesn't change the fact that they're both facts, and both are still in the set of facts you're trying to keep private. Even using cash doesn't matter; it's not recorded, but this isn't due to your using cash. It's due to a decision by merchants to not carefully record such details in cash transactions. You didn't make that decision, and can't benefit from it here. It also fails because you are not the author; yours is not the hand that takes the intangible fact and fixes it in some tangible form. The merchants et al who do this will do so whether you like it or not. In fact, the whole point of this exercise is that you don't like it. If you actually had authorial control, you could stop them from recording data to begin with. As they're going to record it anyhow, you don't get to claim it as your own.

A non-fiction story is a compilation of facts. A fictional story is a compilation of some mixture of fact and imagination. Both are subject to copyright. People can take excerpts, but (correct me if I'm wrong) they cannot obtain the entire work. If giving out one number allows someone to obtain the entire work, would that not be considered a violation of copyright?

Facts can never be copyrighted, and thus can always be taken from any compilation of facts. If you write a history book, I can copy out all of your dates, battles, names, and so on, and use them in my own history book. This is because you do not own history.

The most you can expect is that I cannot copy your expression of those facts, if it is creative (e.g. not "Battle of Hastings in 1066" but rather a paragraph describing what happened) or your selection and arrangement of facts, also if it is creative. Certainly in no case can the copyright actually or even strongly tend to effectively result in a copyright on a fact (e.g. if there is only one way, or a few ways, to practically express a fact), under the merger doctrine.

So your discussion about even small exerpts of works leading to infringement is premature. So far, the facts of your life are not a work. They're just a bunch of unprotected facts, in an unprotected compilation.

Your credit record is a document you are writing either by action or inaction.

Utterly wrong. It is a document someone else is writing about you, based on observation. Action and inaction are not acts of creative authorship. Again, you cannot get a copyright on the facts of your life by living them. In fact, you cannot get a copyr

The Ethics of Data Brokers?

[AthenianGadfly]

The Ethics of Data Brokers

The submitter poses an interesting question, but forgot to include a link where the answer can be found. Here it is.

Ethics of Data Brokers?

[dR.fuZZo]

Isn't this a contradiction in terms? Like military intelligence or Microsoft Works?

Are you serious?

[Groovus]

"should anyone be able to sell information about you at all?"

In a word: no.

In three words: no fucking way.

The fact that this isn't obvious is incredibly frustrating/depressing.

You Can Get Your Report From ChoicePoint

[Anonymous Coward]

I sent them a check for $20, my name, SSN, telephone number, current and previous address and got a ChoicePoint report with the following information:

• a list of "possible" recent addresses I have had,[I say possible because there are other people with my name, so they list all possible addresses]
  
• a list of all vehicles registered to the above addresses,
  
• a list of all property owners that were identified with my possible addresses,
  
• a list of all my neighbors' names, addresses and phone numbers,
  
• possible state criminal history,
  
• any state licenses (medical, dental, fishing, hunting, etc.)
  
• possible real estate ownership listings from the state title databases,
  
• somewhat limited credit report info.
  

The report indicates that the following databases were also searched: ABI business directory, Active US Military Personnel, Aircraft, Bankruptcies, Liens & Judgements, Corporate Records, DEA Controlled Substance Licenses, Dallas County Criminal Histories, Deed Transfers, Federal Firearms and Explosives Licenses, Florida Insurance agents, Infractions, Marine Radio Licenses, Pilots, Professional Licenses, Significant Shareholders, State Beverage Licenses, State Trademark Registratiions, Trademarks/Service Marks, UCC Filings, Watercraft, and state-specific databases.

There were some errors: since they did not indicate the source (which database of origin) of the errors I sent ChoicePoint corrections.

OT but

[rsilvergun]

you know she's got a new album on the way :). Kate that is.

Re:OT but

[smellsofbikes]

Dude, it's OUT. And it's good, according to my bush-fanatic friends. I'll try and get it in the next couple days.

privatize reputation and justice?

[bzipitidoo]

There's an old concept called "reputation". I'm all for everyone's reputation being generally available. But reputation is potent and multifaceted. We need diversity of opinion and tolerance, so that people aren't ostracised. A single number where higher is better, as credit scores are done, is too simplistic to be fair. At the least, there ought to be many measures of credit, with creditors using different combinations. There already is some of that. We need an appeals process, and a way for those with deservedly "bad" reputations to pay what debts they can, and start over. We need flexibility and leniency-- none of this 3 strikes and you're name is mud forever after stuff, no "rules is rules" attitudes. Also need an ongoing debate about what info is relevant to financial reputation, and info that is deemed irrelevant should not be used against people. Don't want any profiling based on race or religion or some such going on.

We already have a lot of this in place-- it's called the justice system. I doubt private companies are able to do the same job and be fair, not without a lot more standards, guidelines, incentives and so on, such as penalties for errors, as well as all the checks built in to the justice system. For instance, trials are a matter of public record. The Bill of Rights is very relevant here-- the right to confront a witness against you, speedy trials, no cruel and unusual punishments, no self incrimination, and so on. Without the standards the justice system must adhere to, I'm uncomfortable with private companies passing judgement on people. It takes only a few unethical and foolish companies to not only spoil their own reputations, but the reputations of all companies involved in the same business, as well as the reputation of the whole idea. Which would be a shame, because the US Justice system has plenty of problems, and competition could make justice better.

The idea of people "owning" all info about themselves is silly. (Well, the idea of "owning" information is silly.) Talk about shutting down gossip. A guy who breaks a traffic law and causes an accident should not be allowed to place a gag order on everyone involved. Nor should a petty workplace cheater, the sort who steals nickels from the coffee fund, be allowed to hush everyone up. Fortunately, such an order is impossible to enforce. Privacy can be carried to ridiculous extremes.

Mod parent +6 Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

eom

Business Sense

[MrElectron]

What really chaps my hide is when these data brokers/credit agencies feel that it is fair to charge you to see what in your own file. Neglecting for the moment how sleazy I think these businesses are and looking at this from a strict business sense; these companies are still in the business of selling a product. You would think that they would want to sell the best quality product they could. Any errors in your credit report have the real potential to harm you AND the business that just rejected your purchase based on their erroneous data. Wouldn't it make sense for them to want to enlist you as a Quality inspector and give you free access to your file? Doesn't it seem that that would have the effect of improving the quality of their product and as well as make average people less hostile toward them? Is it just me that thinks that their business model is all screwed up?

I wish

[davidwr]

Apply for a small bank loan at 15% interest:
They want your SS#, income, credit report, blah blah blah. Say no and they turn you down.

Apply for a same-sized pawn shop loan at BIGNUM% interest:
They want your drivers license # and collateral. Say no and they turn you down.

Apply for a same-sized loan from Guido at 100% per week interest:
He just needs to know where to find your kneecaps.

Justice, not ethics

[quentin_quayle]

"Ethics" is not the word. It is a category mistake to speak of a corporation having principles, acting ethically, or caring about anything other than profit or shareholder value. It is a case of attributing human qualities to an inanimate thing. Considered as a person, a corporation is a perfect sociopath. Speaking of what it "ought" to do is nonsensical. Like a shark, all that anyone can expect it to do is pursue its sole interest without regard for the consequences for anyone else or any other considerations.

What we want here is justice, not ethics. We want protection of the moral rights of citizens to appropriate control of information about themselves.

There is a freedom-of-speech aspect. It should remain legal to transmit truthful information. However, businesses should be prevented from using the customers' information for anything beyond the immediate transaction in which it is collected, unless the customer gives separate permission.

Other Ccountrys

[Anonymous Coward]

Other countrys have much strikter laws than the US. Germany for example has privacy laws that basically mean any company that stores your information or passes it on needs to have your written permission. They also need to give you free access to that stuff they store and a process to correct it.

Downstream revenue production

[wamcfield]

Maybe we can get a law passed that would allow us to take a percentage of the sale amount everytime our personal data is sold or transferred, much like the RIAA and MPAA plan to do with "their" content. Anyone have a workable micro-micropayment solution yet?

Legality of Information Brokers

[blankgm]

It comes down to this. There is aboslutely nothing illegal with, and there never will be anything illegal with, the gathering and selling of information about an individual..........until we as the 'consumers' start buying information about our Congressmen and Senators - then and only then will we see a quick and absolute death to such practices.

Re:Legality of Information Brokers

[SilverspurG]

until we as the 'consumers' start buying information about our Congressmen and Senators

But then we consumers would be labelled terrorist stalkers, apprehended by the police or FBI, interrogated, investigated by the IRS, our credit reports trashed, we'd be laid off from our employers due to downsizing or some other silly excuse, and we'd get the impression that you're not supposed to go generally investigating those who are more socially and politically powerful for you.

Agreed

[umbrellasd]

For me the end result is what concerns me and that is that they get the data. It is true that the sources are often private companies, but the end result is the same. Big brother has a wealth of data on us.

I doubt anyone could successfully argue that our government is unable to find out just about every thing that you do and everything "about you" if they are inclined. It is a scary fact which I think is only made a little better by the fact that there is security in obscurity and most of what we do just fades into the background noise of irrelevancy. But if the eye does catch hold of you, because of a data error or a misidentification or a terror fear frenzy, big brother can figure out "you" to an excruciating level of detail.

The only real question is how easily can they do it for large numbers of people at a time and how openly can they move against a large category of people that a datamine identifies as having a particular undesirable trait in common. There's a lot of safety in a government wanting to "appear" to respect privacy, because they put boundaries around themselves insofar as what they are willing to openly do because of the way those actions would reveal the charade of respect for individual liberty.

I guess what I am saying here is that it isn't really how much information people have about you that is the problem. It's the type of appearance the government is willing to communicate to the populace that is key and whether they can maintain that appearance at a level that they can quell potential rebellious elements of society. An example is that a military state can strip you of more liberties because they have strong military presence in all civilian sectors and thus rebellion requires a greater number of people (so they can do harsher things without inciting enough people to rebel that it would cause a problem).

In the US, public opinion is pretty important because the stated power of the government is mandated by the population and founded on public approval (more or less, :-)). In other words, "The land of the free and the home of the brave." As long as the government wants and needs to uphold that appearance to prevent rebellion on a level that would threaten it, the scope of what they can do with your information is limited.

It's not the information that they have. It's a given that they can get it. People that think our laws prevent the Government from obtaining our information--I do not think those people understand the true power that the Government wields. The real issue is how strongly motivated the government is to not disabuse you of the notion that you have privacy.

I want my share of me

[doc6502]

Since the data agregators and ChoicePoint monkeys are all getting paid for making information off of me, I should get a cut. They already have my SSN. I know that one of these jamokes has my bank details. Why shouldn't I get something like 5% off of every transaction these guys make?

Incorrect Info = Slander Libel? Data Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

At what point can you claim incorrect information is subject to libel and slander? A company should be able to exhibit an honest attempt to validate information before circulating it.

All companies experience data quality issues and my analysis showed that single person-to-person communication is at best 87% accurate and depreciates quickly as the information is passed around; 87% - 76% - 66% - 57% - 50% - 43% - 38%.

Re:someone has to... Let it be us

[Anonymous Coward]

That model is old.

Wiki rules *this* era.

So, do it with some sorte of Wiki.

Sure, it could work ! :p

The information cat's outta the bag...

[Starker_Kull]

...but the enforcement of its correctness is not. Let's face it, if you want to gather information on someone, you can do so pretty easily, and that is an inevitable result of computer technology and data aggregation techniques becoming cheap and fast. And the reality is, do you want banks giving loans out to any schmoe, and charging you higher interest rates when he/she defaults? There is a legitimate role for information gathering in a modern society.

The problem occurs with errors. THIS is the crucial problem - from getting on a "no-fly" list, to having your identity swiped and defaults improperly placed on your credit report, etc. And the reason it occurs is that there is no incentive for the credit bureaus and other information gatherers to get it right - there is no penality if they screw someone over with incorrect info.

So, why not come up with a law - if a data selling business, EVEN UNKNOWINGLY, provides false information that results in damages (and broadly define this) to an individual, they are liable to correct the damages, pay for any reasonable expenses borne by the individual in demonstrating the falsity of the information, and up to 100 times the amount of damages (determined by a jury based on the company's attitude toward the law) as a punitive measure. In this respect, it does not seem too far from the way slander and libel cases are handled - just allowing for the fact that in this informationally easy age, not only famous people can be libeled and slandered. Hopefully this would give them a LARGE incentive to be at least correct.

Of course, this doesn't address the privacy rights side of things at all, but at least this might tackle SOME of the abuses occurring....

  (Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, not even close, so I'm sure there is a lot I am missing. But doesn't the general idea have some merit?)

Re:The information cat's outta the bag...

[SilverspurG]

The problem occurs with errors. THIS is the crucial problem

As I study the problem I start to see that this errors are not the crucial problem. Errors are the popular problem because they're easy to report on in the media and easy to prove in court.

The crucial problem is profiling, conflict of interest, and exploitation. Take a bank issuing a mortgage. For any given income level they can profile the customers according to their income, debts, and current monthly payments. Don't look at it as a business decision of loan or no-loan. Look at it as a business decision of who's milkable, who's downright fleeceable, and who's priveleged. People who are close to the break even point, for example, are less likely to research all of the avenues for obtaining the truly best home loan and interest rates. Those people are milkable. People who are close to the break even point and who have any sort of necessity (been denied by other lenders, need to move soon, etc.) are downright fleeceable if given even the slightest option. People who have a year's worth of savings, however, can probably afford the options to find the best deals.

I'm not worried about someone stealing my identity or putting false reports on my credit. I'm worried about my financial and consumer information being used in price fixing schemes which ensure that I'll have almost no opportunity of escaping the cycle of indentured servitude--where I'm always paying bills for someone else's profit and never getting out of debt.

And don't think that the stock market industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry, and the credit industry don't have thousands of statisticians and accountants putting all of this together in order to eke that last 0.1% of profit out of it. At that point it's not really personally malicious--it's just creating and identifying a slave segment of society.

That's the sort of thing that tax dollars should be fighting against--not supporting.

Oxymoron

[spurious cowherd]

The "ethics" of data brokers?

Ok. I thought Military Intelligence , Jumbo Shrimp & Microsoft Works were oxymorons but this raises the form to new heights
(or lows....depending)

Ah, Privacy.

[themassiah]

As a person who recently had a background check done by "BackChek" (a ChoicePoint company), I can speak with first-hand of the experience.

Without mincing words, it was botched. My name turned up two other criminal records with a similar name. I assure you, this was quite a suprise to me as I've never been detained, charged, arrested or incarcerated before by any authority.

So, after being informed by my recruiter that my background check had "turned something up", I was quite upset. You see, I had already turned in notice to job #1 (I was extended an offer before the criminal background check was completed) and was winding down at that job and preparing for job #2. After much scrambling around and research, I managed to secure a copy of one of the accusatory instruments.

They had matched my supposed 'criminal record' with this other criminal record on NAME ALONE. In terms that more of you might understand: Select * from Criminal_Database where NAME equals "$myname";. I am a full 7" taller than this person and weighed approximately 50 pounds more. I also had different color hair and different color eyes. I live at a different address in a different county. I am of a different race. Wouldn't you think that data integrity of a company like ChoicePoint would be of a slightly higher quality? Rather than costing me DAYS of

The biggest problem that I had with the entire experience is that the ChoicePoint company was very unwilling to research the problem further, even with me giving them the case #, the court's contact information and other such information. I even faxed them a copy of the actual report, but they were unwilling to review it. I am still awaiting their final disposition, some 3 weeks later.

ok, here is how it really works

[bturnip]

A lot of the personal information that some folks like to think they own isn't theirs. How could it be? How could anyone reasonably think that the something like "number of times person #123456789 rented n movies with a credit card issued by XYZ" is personal property? Background checks, government monitoring, violation of my information, blah, blah, blah...

And the "I should get compensated each time my information is sold!" is complete crap. Statistics aren't property. Should your favorite sports team or league get some kind of cut everytime the newspaper publishes the score of the latest game? Should a star athlete get paid everytime a website mentions his stats?

If the answer is no, what makes your piddly fucking stats and information so fucking important?
*i.e., for the completely cluess, I am talking about professional physical sports like NFL, NBA, etc., NOT Halo2 tournaments!

No disrespect to those folks who really don't want their information sold, but the paranoids are running away with this issue. You know why companies buy what you think is "your" information? Here it comes...wait for it...these companies want you to buy whatever crap it is they are selling!

Oh, the horror! Strangely enough, companies are not too interested in Kafka-esque mind control. Want to know what they really? Here is a scenario:

Company XYZ: Hi, I have these 20 million records that are my customers. I want to get them to sign up for my new EvilEmpire Rewards credit cards.

BlackHelicopterDataCompany: Ok

[time passes, data is processed]

BlackHelicopterDataCompany: Alrighty, we took your 20MM customers, sorted them all out to find out you really just have about 12MM customers, and these are the 2MM that are statistically most likely to respond to your offer.

Company XYZ: Muwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Re:ok, here is how it really works

[SilverspurG]

Here it comes...wait for it...these companies want you to buy whatever crap it is they are selling!

Aren't price fixing consortiums illegal?

Given the amount of personal data which every business collects and freely trades around it'd be silly to think that they're not using it to fix prices at the maximum possible level, completely negate the effects of any competitive pricing, and create a social class of permanently exploitable people who, statistically, will simply never have a chance of getting out of debt. To me that's the same as slavery--except the owner doesn't have to worry about housing or feeding the slaves.

I, for one, don't want my tax dollars contributing to that sort of effort in any way.

Slavery hasn't been abolished. It's been redefined and obfuscated. Modern day slave markets are temp agencies, unemployement lines, and internet job boards.

Sounds Like People Want.... DRM!

[arakasi]

Reading the posts here, they sound a lot like people want DRM for their personal information:

I want to prevent people from copying my info with out my permission.

I want to take a cut from every transaction that involves my information.

Sounds a lot like the *AAs agenda:

Music/Movie DRM

The *AA wants to prevent people from copying their stuff without permission.

The *AA wants to take a cut from every transaction that involves their stuff.

Interesting. I wouldn't say it's hypocritical. The key difference is that our desire to control who does what with our information is generated by the uncertainty of who is looking at the information and what they intend to do with it -- not simple greed (although the desire to take a cut indicates otherwise for some people).

Re:Sounds Like People Want.... DRM!

[SilverspurG]

Doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, that a significant amount of tax money, which comes out of your paycheck, goes to support an industry which is set up explicitly to exploit you for someone else's benefit?

I'd like for my tax dollars to start benefitting me. Not someone else. Tell them to get their own tax dollars.

Re:Sounds Like People Want.... DRM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds a lot like the *AAs agenda:

I think you mean ??AA

There are enough of them as it is without leaving it open to any more cry-baby lawsuit-happy media organizations.

Data Harvest and Sale

[queenb**ch]

Unfortunately, our legal system has decided that anyone can collect data on you. He who collects the data, owns the data. He who owns the data can sell, rent, lend, lease, or give the data out as his discretion since it is legal property. You however, the subject of all this, have exactly ZERO right see the data, correct the data, or know who is accessing the data.

Privacy is dead and has been for a long time. That stench you smell is the rotting corpse.

2 cents,

Queen B

Re:Data Harvest and Sale

[Anonymous Coward]

When you speak of privacy in this instance, let's be clear that you're really advocating that the government supress other people's speech.

If you don't want information about you out there, don't share it, or share it only with those whom you trust to keep it in confidence.

Want to arrest the folks at Yahoo for their yellow pages and say goodbye to investigative journalism altogether? I'm amazed by the hypocrites who loath the RIAA for trying to prevent the duplication of music without the creator's consent, yet themselves want to be able to stop the spread of certain information.

Instead of clamoring for a right to privacy, which is really a right to muzzle other people, we should treasure the limited freedom of speech we still have.

Re:Data Harvest and Sale

[queenb**ch]

Let me be pefectly clear - THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH. One more time, it has nothing to do with free speech. Have you ever installed RealPlayer? Well, guess what, if you have, I can go to Real, buy your email address, your browsing habits, your home address - if you were foolish enough to supply it, average time you spend on the internet, etc. Further, once I've bought the information on you, I now own it and can resell it to others. I can find out which users used your computer, for how long, what they looked and did, how long each task took them, etc. All in the name of all mighty Marketing. Still think this is about free speech? Let's say that Real develops a problem with their datatbase such that it shows that all users are looking at www.gerbils_n_ducktape.com. How would you like it, if on your next job interview, your prospective employer asked you how much time you spend per week on www.gerbils_n_ducktape.com? Still wanna tell me it's about free speech????

2 cents,

Queen B

National Change of Address

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address.
https://moversguide.usps.com/?referral=USPS

See section E of the term and conditions.

http://ribbs.usps.gov/files/ncoalink/CERTIFIED_LIC ENSEES/
http://ribbs.usps.gov/files/ncoalink/CERTIFIED_LIC ENSEES/FULL.PDF

most underrated post EVER

[Travoltus]

max born, you're so right on the mark it's phenomenal. I don't want Government OR corporations stockpiling my personal information without my consent.

libel

[Anonymous Coward]

check if you can't sue them for libel.

if they demand money from you to stop spreading factually incorrect information, perhaps also extortion (given a good lawyer)

It has been done :) (n/t)

[Anonymous Coward]

lameness filter

Its Mine

[Anne Thwacks]

Information about me should be inherently/inalienably mine. That includes my genome. If there are any inalienable human rights, this should be top of the list.

Anyone selling it is entitled to a small percentage, as a commission, but I should get the bulk (~90%)of the money. The copyright should be something unsaleable (so that poor people cannot be induced to sell their souls to the devil).

No. I alone own my purchase history !

[Anonymous Coward]

> Recently Bezos from Amazon was asked (I'm paraphrasing) "So, who owns my purchase history?",
> the answer being "Well, you own a copy. And we own a copy.". Think about that.

I buy a lot of books.

I am from europe and have been a satisfied customer of both amazon.com in the US and a german online bookstore called telebuch.de.

Then, around 1998 or 1999, telebuch.de was taken over by amazon and I could order both german and english books from amazon.de, using my old telebuch.de account. That was nice.

About a year after the takeover, I got an email from amazon, stating that they had unilaterally decided to change the terms and conditions of my account, and that they would reserve the right to forward my account data to third parties.

I immediately canceled my account at amazon and ordered them to destroy any personal data they gathered on me (according to 34BDSG, a german privacy law)

Since then, I still occasionally check on amazon to find a book, but I always order them by email from a local bookstore, and pick them up the next day.

I think this is morally O.K., because amazon sure does not decline to do business with a person that browsed books in his neighborhood bookstore and then orders them at a discount on the web.

This way, I own my purchase history, and only share it with the owner of a tiny bookstore I trust.

Amazon has had its opportunity with me, and they lost it.

"Modern slavery"?!

[StupidKatz]

[...] create a social class of permanently exploitable people who, statistically, will simply never have a chance of getting out of debt

One problem with that: those people didn't start out being in debt in the first place. In most all cases, said people CHOSE to saddle themselves with debt, so that they could have their new cars/clothes/house/whatever instead of chosing less expensive alternatives and/or locales. The only possible way your analogy could work is if you stated that said people decided to sell themselves into "slavery"... but then whose fault is it at that point?

Re:"Modern slavery"?!

[SilverspurG]

One problem with that: those people didn't start out being in debt in the first place

That's where you're wrong. Who do you think bears the load of the federal debt?

It's a debtor society. The only question is which side of the debt line you're on.

In most all cases, said people CHOSE to saddle themselves with debt, so that they could have their new cars/clothes/house/whatever instead of chosing less expensive alternatives and/or locales

That's the common argument. It sounds pretty good and helps the speaker feel better about their own personal choices by elevating themselves above the unwashed masses. The argument holds no water when you face the reality that the federal debt does affect some people more than others. It's not an easy mathematical equation of salary and tax, either. Again, the only question is which side of the debt line you're on. If you're just barely scraping by on your salary and holding a 25% tax load then you're affected quite a bit more by the federal debt than someone who has $100k in the bank and a 28% debt load. Who is honestly responsible for the federal debt? Arguably the people who benefit the most--the CEOs and the VPs taking the lion's share of the cash flow from federal government contracts. Who, in reality, bears the majority of the debt burden? That would be the people earning less than $100k/year. In terms of payments only the folk earning millions per year pay more--but they also get more back. In terms of net contribution after all the kickbacks are figured in it is the common laborer who's paying the majority of the tax.

For example. Recently there was an expose on the east coast about CEOs of non profit organizations with absurd salaries. Some of them, as CEOs of non profit organizations, were taking home in excess of $4 million a year. Most of them were CEOs of organizations who dealt exclusively with federal contract money. That's 100% pure taxpayer money being funneled into the pocket of someone who's supposedly performing a public service.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Government is not your friend.

The only possible way your analogy could work is if you stated that said people decided to sell themselves into "slavery"... but then whose fault is it at that point?

Slavery is the natural state of anyone who lives paycheck-to-paycheck. That happens to be, in terms of population, a significant portion of society--probably close to 40%. We just don't call it slavery anymore because the cold hard facts are too much for most people to choke down through their public school education.

Re:"Modern slavery"?!

[StupidKatz]

I'm not going to debate your points, as many are most likely pretty accurate. I will debate their relevance, though.

By "slavery", I mean "forced servitude". We can debate the unfairness of the tax system all day long (and we'd probably just be preaching to ourselves in the choir, anyway), but what's to stop someone from simply not working for money? You may point out the impracticality of that, and you'd be right, but it still exists. No one forces anyone to work in polite society.

I'm not spouting T-shirt wisdom from my ivory tower or gold-filled bank-vault. I live debt-free. I own a used car, rent an apartment, and my credit cards carry a zero balance. I live within my means, as it is said. It is my opinion that everyone should do the same. The one exception to my lifestyle: buying a house. I haven't figured out how to efficiently save $250,000 yet. :P Also, I work because I choose to. I want to buy computer parts and use a broadband line. I could live in missions and drift around doing whatever, but I'd rather not. ;)

Moving on...
Slavery is the natural state of anyone who lives paycheck-to-paycheck. That happens to be, in terms of population, a significant portion of society--probably close to 40%. We just don't call it slavery anymore because the cold hard facts are too much for most people to choke down through their public school education.
People often live paycheck-to-paycheck to "maintain a lifestyle", also referred to as "living outside their means". New house, two cars, two kids, new boat, whatever. As opposed to buying a smaller, used house, or maybe a townhouse/condo, one used car (or another economy model, if required), and exercising discretion in other purchases and expenses. I dare say that most people living in conditions you describe did so because of choices they made.

Re:"Modern slavery"?!

[SilverspurG]

Between rent, electricity, water, gas, food, etc. I've estimated that it costs at least $5/hour, 24/7/365, just to exist in this society. You want to drive your car? That'll be $5/hour in gas, maintenance, wear-n-tear. You want to watch a movie? That'll be $5/hour for the movie, electricity, popcorn, etc. You want to breathe in your own apartment? That'll be at least $20/day just for to rent the structure for most middle class city citizens renting a modest apartment (that covers 4 of the 24 daily hours alone!), then add in the distributed cost of electricity and water. You want to go out shopping for groceries? Consider yourself anorexic if you only spend $5 for every hour you're out grocery shopping. You want to eat at McDonald's? You'll be lucky to get 20 minutes out of a $5 meal.

If you're not making at least $43k, take home, per year then you're likely involved in some sort of system to cost-share or else you will fall into debt. Accountants know this. Banks know this. Credit card companies know this. Investment brokers know this. Insurance companies know this. The Government knows this (mainly because of the kickbacks that they get and the social cost-sharing programs they create to hide it). Every single one of them is playing that knowledge against people who don't know it.

The biggest card they play is to lead people, like you, to browbeat anyone who falls into debt. Guilt is a powerful game. People who accept their browbeating never look to see how they're being screwed because they accept that their plight is through some fault of their own. That's not the case in this society. The plight is created for the financial profit of those who administer the browbeating.

Follow the money trail. It leads to a very different conclusion than living within your means. You're not living within your means. You've been allowed to have means which give you the privelege of living a lifestyle which satisfies your need for entertainment and stimuli. Maybe you're easily amused or maybe your salary is priveleged. Take a week out sometime and cut out all activities which cost any money at all. Spend one week doing nothing every night after work but twiddling your thumbs while staring blankly at the wall. I guarantee you that, by the end of the third day, you'll be doing something which costs money. For many people living within their means translates into twiddling thumbs for 20 days out of the month--and that's just stupid when you consider the wealth of this nation.

To admonish someone to just "live within your means" is arrogant and ignorant at the same time. Yes, there are people who just spend like idiots, but that's not the majority of what's going on in society. The majority factor is that people are being milked by a system they don't even recognize exists and those who don't have it quite so bad are taught to hold themselves as high-and-mighty above those who utter even the smallest complaint.

Re:"Modern slavery"?!

[StupidKatz]

To admonish someone to just "live within your means" is arrogant and ignorant at the same time.

It could be, if you were talking to a kid living in a dinky, ratty studio who was working full-time and attending college full-time (on a $1000 "scholarship" awarded years previous) and counting the days until the money ran out, with the sole extravagance being a slow dialup connection (and associated phone) for about $25/mo - no TV, either. Which was my situation not very long ago.

For the folks I knew then and the ones I've known since then, most all have automobiles they are making payments on, having purchased either new ones, or fancy models ... which can easily run $20,000-$40,000 right there!
On top of that, then there are the rest of the "standard" items, such as music CDs, movies and associated DVDs, big televisions, alcohol, designer clothes ... all things folks "can't live without", apparently, yet some do manage to get along fine with fewer or none of such items. In my case, I spent my poorest years yakking away on IRC, while writing crappy mIRC scripts, with a trip to the $2 movie theatre once a month or so. I read many books (used or borrowed from the library), though mostly fiction, and tooled around on an old bicycle when money for gas was tight.

However, your main thrust seems to be: it sucks to be stuck in a low-wage job, and yes it does. Yet, no one has a right to a nice job with a fat paycheck - you have to convince one of those fat-cat CEOs, or one of their many underlings, to give you such. How does one go about doing that? Good question, and one I don't have a universal answer for. "Hard work" comes close, though, and Americans are pretty damned lazy. Living in California or on the east coast probably doesn't help the situation, either.

If you're not making at least $43k, take home, per year then you're likely involved in some sort of system to cost-share or else you will fall into debt.
All I can say is, "you're wrong". I'm proof of that, and I'm even a rabid gamer that spends thousands of dollars a year on PC parts and software. And those damned new gameboys. Hate you, Nintendo.

Re:"Modern slavery"?!

[SilverspurG]

All I can say is, "you're wrong". I'm proof of that

You're proof that you're thinking inside of the box and not recognizing all of the social programs (aka. pyramid schemes) that you benefit from.

It costs $5/hour just to live in this society. Go over your bills. Go over the cost of everything you do. Prove me wrong.

If you're "making it" and bringing home less than $43k/year then you have some additional advantages: maybe your family gives nice gifts around the holidays. Maybe your friends foot the bill for the neat new PS/2 games. Maybe you're priveleged with a lower average rent payment. Maybe you're so easily amused that you can spend 8 hours/day staring a blank wall.

Most normal humans require stimuli. That stimuli, in today's society, costs $5/hour. Go to a health club. There's no great cosmic mystery to why they're about $50-$100/mo. They figure their members will be in 3-5 days/week at 30 mins to an hour each. 5 days x 30 mins = 2.5 hours. 2.5 hours x 4 = 10 hours. $50/10 hours = $5 hour. And they're still making a profit. It costs $5/hour just to live in this world.

Just because you don't recognize the priveleges and cost-breaks that you receive doesn't mean they're not there. You are further obvious testimony that the majority of the public just has not yet sat down to really figure out exactly how much they really do spend each and every day. And you obviously haven't spent more than the most cursory amount of time thinking about where that money goes.

I hope somebody reads this...

[cr0sh]

I am not going to argue the "ethics" and "responsibility" of whether the data about us as individuals should or should not be ours. Personally, I think it should be, and I think we should have complete control of it, etc. However, this sentence from the submitter caught my eye:

The general public seems to think not, while our elected officials seem to think it's just fine.

I have seen this sentence in a variety of forms, but ultimately, it boils down to the perception by seemingly every member of the public that there is an US and a THEM. When and why did this mentality start?

Arguably, it could be said it has always been this way, for as long as there was a government and the governed. However, here in the United States of America, what has happened to cause us, the citizens, to view our government this way? Ignorance? Apathy?

We don't have "elected officials" - our government is supposed to be a representative democracy. All of the members of our government are elected as representatives of the people. The key word is "represent"! They are supposed to be elected to represent our interests, to represent in a analogous fashion who we are as individuals.

These people we elect are not meant to be our kings or queens. They are not the "ruling elite", and they should not be viewed, thought, or spoken of as so. To do so grants them more power and status than they deserve. We are not vassels under a lordship. We are free citizens of the United States of America in a representative democracy.

The way the submitter speaks in his writing (and it isn't just him - it is spoken this way of our representative on a wide ranging number of issues affecting the lives of you and I), seems to indicated that the ChoicePoint (or similar) issue didn't (and never can) affect the lives of our elected representatives. Why not? Why shouldn't it? Why do our elected representatives think (or know?) that it can't? If it can't affect our representatives, why should they care how it affects those who they represent?

If they don't, if they truly think this way, then we are nothing better than serfs fated to live out our lives in mediocrity. This isn't the United States I was brought up to know and love.

A famous quote by Thomas Jefferson, one of our country's founding fathers, reads:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

I dare to wonder if the time is nigh that we need to exercise our second ammendment rights, march on Washington, and water that tree a little. It is "We the People" and not "Us" versus "Them". The sooner the citizens and our representatives realize this again, the better off we and our country will be.