Slashdot Mirror
120 Data Brokers Just Registered In Vermont Under a Landmark Law (fastcompany.com)
tedlistens writes: Vermont's newly enacted data broker law is the only law of its kind in the U.S. so far, and it's forced any company collecting data on its citizens to register with the state. Fast Company wrote about the limitations of the law and compiled a list of the companies, what they do, and tips for opting-out if possible.
The Vermont law only covers third-party data firms -- those trafficking in the data of people with whom they have no relationship -- as opposed to "first-party" data holders like Amazon, Facebook, or Google, which collect their own enormous piles of detailed personal data directly from users. It doesn't require data brokers to disclose who's in their databases, what data they collect, or who buys it. Nor does it require brokers to give consumers access to their own data or opt out of data collection. Brokers are, however required to provide some information about their opt-out systems under the law -- assuming they provide one. "The registry is an expansive, alphabet soup of companies, from lesser-known organizations that help landlords research potential tenants or deliver marketing leads to insurance companies, to the quiet giants of data," reports Fast Company. "Those include big names in people search, like Spokeo, ZoomInfo, White Pages, PeopleSmart, Intelius, and PeopleFinders; credit reporting, like Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion; and advertising and marketing, like Acxiom, Oracle, LexisNexis, Innovis, and KBM. Some companies also specialize in 'risk mitigation,' which can include credit reporting but also background checks and other identity verification services."
The report lists all the companies that have registered under Vermont's data broker law, with descriptions drawn from their websites or other sources where noted.
The Vermont law only covers third-party data firms -- those trafficking in the data of people with whom they have no relationship -- as opposed to "first-party" data holders like Amazon, Facebook, or Google, which collect their own enormous piles of detailed personal data directly from users. It doesn't require data brokers to disclose who's in their databases, what data they collect, or who buys it. Nor does it require brokers to give consumers access to their own data or opt out of data collection. Brokers are, however required to provide some information about their opt-out systems under the law -- assuming they provide one. "The registry is an expansive, alphabet soup of companies, from lesser-known organizations that help landlords research potential tenants or deliver marketing leads to insurance companies, to the quiet giants of data," reports Fast Company. "Those include big names in people search, like Spokeo, ZoomInfo, White Pages, PeopleSmart, Intelius, and PeopleFinders; credit reporting, like Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion; and advertising and marketing, like Acxiom, Oracle, LexisNexis, Innovis, and KBM. Some companies also specialize in 'risk mitigation,' which can include credit reporting but also background checks and other identity verification services."
The report lists all the companies that have registered under Vermont's data broker law, with descriptions drawn from their websites or other sources where noted.
That was literally the dumbest rant I'll read today.
" The best solution is to END the stupid regulations that insure we don't have privacy respecting solutions in the market place. " - Ensure. Marketplace, one word.
You're a moron. Libertarians tend to be, but you've demonstrated what happens when we plumb that depth.
"I have spoken on other privacy threats like drone registration " - Lol.
Get out of America, move to Somalia, run your own libertarian fantasy world, idiot.
when you need him to fight for people's rights
It's not the private companies that are a threat. It's government. .
The private companies sell to the government. They don't even have to tell you or agree that with you. In fact, even if they wanted to they couldn't.
I have control over who I do business with .
But no way of knowing who the people I do business with do business with unless regulations force them to tell me. That's what matters.
I don't do business with Facebook,
No, but Facebook does business with you. Look up "shadow profiles". Read "Data and Goliath" from Bruce Schneier. After you come back, appropriately chastened, we'll talk further.
It's not the private companies that are a threat. It's government. I have control over who I do business with provided government doesn't over regulate and interfere with what could be a free market. The problem is government, not free enterprise. I don't do business with Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and numerous other companies because I choose not to do business with privacy wrecking entities...
If you use the internet or a modern computer, you do business with damn near every one of the companies you've listed, because whether you like it or not, you are the product.
Control is an illusion.
Until giving of data is opt-in, I do my best to block everyone I know stealing my data. I consider everything about "me" to be privileged information.
My current block list is 130K+ long.
Sometimes websites don't work. Oh, well. My personal data is worth more than they offer. Always.
I'd like all URLs that capture any personal data or data correlated across more than 1 URL to require opt-in. They should block access to any of their services, so then I'd have a chance to know who and when, they are stealing my data.
And I have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I'm surfing while sitting in my home, taking a crap, on my toilet.
This law is simply meaningless. Vermont is just too small for this to have any significant impact on anyone, even its own residents. According to Wikipedia, at 623,657 Vermont is smaller than the 28 largest *cities* in the US; to say nothing about counties, metropolitan areas, or other states.
My bet is that these 120 brokers are the handful that have offices, employees, or other operations in Vermont. Honestly, I'm surprised the number is even that high. And my prediction is that 120 will be dropping fairly quickly as companies close up shop in Vermont and tell it to go pound sand.
Imagine all the people...
Yeppers. On the other hand, now the Vermont authorities know who to go to when they need information about their residents that the residents are reluctant to hand out....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
A quick glance at the list says it is populated primarily by spammers, adjutants to the gestapo, and organizations dedicated to kicking the poor.
Most likely some states will soon begin to catch up to Europe in protecting their citizens from data rape. Any new law banning data rape and data hoarding should aim to drive into bankruptcy as many as possible of the unamerican slimeball companies on this list.
Perhaps this idiot would share with us how he identifies who he "does business with" because these days you are doing business with internet companies unawares in that they are using your data as a commodity - companies like this 120 (and many many others) that few people have heard of. But this guy must not only have heard them but knows how to avoid them too : very clever, but how does he do it?
Isn't that the point of laws like this? Force them to get opt-in permission to handle your personal data, like the GDPR does.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You're as emotionally overwrought as he is. You can't have a society without laws, so your points are largely valid, but *sheesh*, it's better to make the points in a way that people won't shut their ears to.
That said, the amount of regulation is a valid point of discussion. Also who should be how regulated. I've got few concerns about companies and corporations being regulated...except that the existing regulations and regulators tend to favor the ones with deep pockets.
That said, it's not clear to me how this law helps anyone. And notice that companies like Google are unaffected.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's actually profoundly American. Of course it's also British, Russian, German, any other place that has a strong government.
Now if you wanted to claim that it's opposed to the stories that people used to tell themselves about was it was like to be an American, that's a different matter. But they also used to claim that gold was freely available to pick up in California...and many people died of believing that yarn. Just about the only ones who got rich were the merchants, though some farmers did pretty well.
The stories that people tell about themselves and their histories always need to be considered at best fiction. More or less just a guide post saying "something important happened here", and even that's often wrong. The "Old West" was nothing like the Hollywood version. I've read my great grandfather's diary of the days of the opening of the Oklahoma territory. For awhile he was a sheriff in a fairly major (for that time and place) town. Other times he ran a department store, or a construction company. As a sheriff, to take down a gunman he waited until the guy got drunk, and then talked him into putting down is guns...which he then confiscated. And though the guy threatened people, he never actually shot anyone. Soon afterwards the guy left town for somewhere else, were he got shot (and it me it sounded like he set himself up).
As for relations with the local Indians, they were a bit stand-offish, but trade was common, and he didn't report any fights. This doesn't mean such things didn't happen, but they weren't the common experience. His problems were either natural causes, romance, or unruly whites. Or people who wanted him to run for office instead of running his business.
And even then he kept records on just who did what, and how much he thought he could trust them. You don't sell people goods on credit if you don't trust them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Not necessarily, but they're at best hopeless optimists.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.