Pepperidge Farm remembers
What can we say about a corporation doing a trust score for half of the connected population in the world ? I wonder about their ego, or what went wrong in their management.
I'm getting seriously disillusioned with all this surveillance stuff. At first I thought, you know, these were isolated incidents falling through the cracks, but in truth it's become pervasive and global. The scariest aspect is how individual actors have the ability these days to gather, interpret and isolate individuals from massive datasets, anonymising the data seems pie in the sky.
I don't see much stopping it either, in society it seems to be the extremes, some wrongly think GDPR applies to everything and others are so sophisticated they can bypass it completely. Have we gotten too advanced, whereby only experts understand the impacts of our actions? Sorry I'm getting all philosophical.
Well, literally billions of people accept their privacy agreements and actively provide them with data from their phones by using their software. That's quite different from an unknown party telling other companies whether you're reliable without your knowledge based on data neither you nor your provider ever agreed to give them.
A translated complaint is available at https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2023-06/DRAT%20TELESIGN%...
https://onezero.medium.com/google-ads-targeted-at-literally-...
The article didn't insinuate that data is being used to objectively harm users. It's being used to generate "trust scores" for anti-fraud systems. The specific example given in their piece is allowing a user to attach a certain number for SMS verification.
Rather, the point here is that such data could be used to objectively harm users, so those users should have to provide consent. Second to that is that BICS doesn't appear to inform users requesting GDPR data that their data was shared.
I'm not sure I'd label that failures in ego, it smells like failures in process and compliance, which also need to be dealt with in lawsuits.