Ask Slashdot: Getting an Uncooperative Website To Delete One's Account?

First time accepted submitter trentfoley writes "I've been trying to clean up my digital life (insert joke about having a life) and have run into a situation I fear is too common. Many social websites, nextdoor.com in particular, do not allow a user to delete the account they created. In the case of nextdoor.com, their privacy policy makes it clear that the user owns all of their data. If this is true, I should have the right to destroy that data. These lines of thought brought to mind the recent privacy defeat in Europe. Does the defeat of the EU's Right-to-be-Forgotten legislation bring a practical end to this debate?" I've read complaints today from Nextdoor.com users who say their data was sold, too.

Comments

call them

[Karmashock]

I've gotten a lot of sites that don't let you delete accounts to delete the account by simply calling them. Their numbers are often hard to find but get them on the phone and ask nicely.

Re:call them

[Anonymous Coward]

And change the photos, and put nasty notes (they lie, you don't really have control of your account, etc.) in watermarks on the photos, and add new such photos. Do it slowly, a little each day for a couple months. Then just let it sit without warning them. Then don't delete it even if they want you to and re-create it each time they delete it. Create new accounts wilh nothing but bogus information using burner email accounts. Make them wish they had treated you right, even once they start treating you right.

Re:call them

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never given correct information to any website to start. It was completely obvious that they would use that information to their advantage as that is what capitalist corporations *do*.

Was there ever an advantage to me having the information with them? Is the information needed for them to perform a service for me? If the answer to those questions is no, then they get BS info, and a lower level password I keep in a protected space with all the rest.

If a company truly needs correct information from me, then I'm considerably more careful. However, that is actually quite rare. In most cases I can obfuscate and lie about my identity, even with paid services. Although they are working to plug those "meta" holes by heavily restricting just what you can purchase with prepaid credit cards, money orders, etc.

Social Networking is just plain dangerous when the information is centralized, and I never fell for it. It didn't matter what they were offering. I'm only interested in a completely decentralized, encrypted, p2p model similar to OneSocialMedia and Diaspora. Basically, if the infrastructure is inherently resistant towards surveillance and monetization by hostile parties (I consider advertising and marketing to be extremely hostile to my life) then I'm interested.

This post is a question about how to mitigate or outright reverse the damage to the person's privacy. I'm not sure that is really possible at all. More than likely, it's Pandora's box.

The answer is to have never danced with devil in the pale moonlight in the first place.

Here, just like other places, I purposefully choose identities that have conflicting data sets when you search for it. I know that I'm not 100% protected, but if they want to violate my privacy, they will have to work pretty damn hard to do it.

Re:call them

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible they might be legally obligated to retain some of that data.

social media site trust

[turkeydance]

could be classified a delusional state.

Do what you can

[nospam007]

Change all your details in the account settings, name, address, email etc.

Then, deactivate the account like they tell you in their help on their site.

http://help.nextdoor.com/customer/portal/articles/805273-deactivating-your-account

That's about it. Not even Slashdot will erase your old posts when you decide to quit here, nobody does that, it would ruin all the past conversations.

Re:bit of a tricky question with forums

[lgw]

George Lucas was (at least until recently) the owner of the Star Wars Christmas Special. That doesn't give him the right to destroy all tapes made of it in the world. (Much as he wanted to - rumor has it he bought up and destroyed a great many copies before the digital age made it pointless)

Ownership isn't the right to "unpublish".

Re:bit of a tricky question with forums

[Chrisq]

How does being the owner of something entitle you to someone else being required to provide the means to destroy it?

That's what "ownership" means. You get to control it.

Not necessarily. If you own a listed historic building then destroying or altering it is a criminal offence. There are quite a few other examples where you can own something but not legally destroy it.

Re:bit of a tricky question with forums

[psmears]

Sure it does.

"You agree that by submitting content to our service, you are granting a non-revokable, perpetual license to said content."

In which case you don't own it.

I'm not sure that follows. It's quite possible to own some land, but for someone else to have (say) a right of way over it - either that you've granted yourself, or that has arisen some other way. Such a right of way doesn't stop you using the land agriculturally, building on it, selling it, granting rights over it to other people, or forbidding third parties to use the land. You don't, however, have the power to revoke the right of way.

In such a situation, you are still the owner of the land, legally and in an everyday sense. Some people would argue that the situation with data is the same - you may remain the owner, but someone else can still have rights over it.

And a pony

[radarskiy]

"their privacy policy makes it clear that the user owns all of their data. If this is true, I should have the right to destroy that data. "

What is the basis for such a logical leap?

If you're going to make an overreaching claim, you might as well ask for a pony too.

Here's a thought

[ArcadeMan]

If you don't want your life on the net, stop registering with your real information.

Easiest fix

[PopeRatzo]

The only way to win this game is not to play.

Don't feel you have to participate in every social media site. You really won't miss anything if you don't. People will tell you, "You have to have a social media presence to get a job" but that's just BS.

In fact, a very good skill to develop is the ability to ignore cultural phenomenon occasionally. It's almost like a superpower and it can really impact your happiness quotient. For example, I've made it to the last act of a semi-celebrity drama without knowing what a "Duck Dynasty" is, and the feeling is awesome. It takes a bit of preparation and planning, but it is possible to filter out nonsense. And make no mistake, social media is nonsense, and it's dangerous. You think you're getting something when in fact you're having something taken from you.

Re:bit of a tricky question with forums

[Anonymous Coward]

Saving the lot of it for posterity is quite pointless.

I quite disagree. An awful lot of it is just transient communications that have no real value today other than entertainment.

What about the technical forums? I can't even begin to count how many posts from over 5 years ago led me towards solutions today. Is there a lot of noise and incorrect data? Sure. However, some sites account for that and rate the answers. Would you want to delete data that is provably valuable in some lines of research?

That's the problem. How do you determine what is a good post and what is not a good post? What has value to somebody else 10 years from now?

I'm okay with limited ownership of my posts in technical forums.

Slashdot? Well, I take measures anyways. I'm not sure that I would want to destroy it or not. I don't even know if my posts are valuable. Certainly not all. Perhaps a few.