Hacker News Reader

Comment by wdb | Hacker News Reader

Fascinating. I always request my details to be removed after completion so if my details are leaked they have a problem.

View on HN

> according to the VX team: "The database DOES NOT contain information from individuals who use data opt-out services. Every person who used some sort of data opt-out service was not present."

You're good, perhaps! The rest are opted-in for a data leak.

This is a great example of why everything should be opt-in given the risk the individuals incur, not to mention the company.

If society appropriately disincentivized data collection, we could even get to where companies don't see customer data as an asset instead more as a liability.

It seems hard to disincentivize "data" in the same way it's hard to disincentivize "cocaine", e.g. to most companies "10 kg of cocaine" is a liability but there exist certain companies generally staffed by more unpleasant people who make it their business to treat it as an asset.

Which means going to a different layer / structural solution maybe. How does the value of data go to zero?

Lots of companies ran a mile from data once GDPR dropped and it’s pretty much a standard threat model for new information architectures

Nothing meaningful should stored due to data leaks liability, period. Now if data really leaks out users should be able to sue and get compensated. If companies are made to pay they'll clean up their act fast.

It shouldn't be opt-either. It should be treated as radioactive waste that you don't want anywhere near you, your family, not in cold storage, not even in a mine in the Yucca mountains.

I briefly looked into these opt-out services. Quite expensive, they are. This is the first I've seen of them. Are they scams or worth the expense?

Your details just go into a different file, and you show as sus on the next background check.

This is why I don't use those privacy services. An awful lot of companies use background checks as a decider on if they are going to offer you service, or to give discounts to low-risk customers.

I might end up paying extra because my insurance company decided I didn't fall into their 'lowest risk' bucket because my background check came back as "we have never heard of this gal" because I once used a data privacy protecting service or they can't find my facebook/linkedin/twitter.

So your rationale is to avoid seeking out privacy on the off chance that you might not get the biggest discount available when buying insurance?

or a mortgage, credit card, or bank account, yep.

There is easily a 10x difference in insurance prices between "known good customer" and "probably fraudulent customer" - and that difference is the difference between being able to own your own house (with mortgage to begin with) and renting for life.

Most people would value owning their own home over having some computer system using their data to select one ad over another.

While there might be such a difference in price, equating trying to avoid data collection through legitimate means with being flagged as a probable fraudster and having to pay 10x is not sound reasoning.

If people were routinely getting gauged like this for trying to opt out of something, there would be a pretty huge story in that and I doubt it would go unreported.

Would these people necessarily know? I mean, if I'm getting quoted $10,000 a year to insure my car and my neighbor pays $1,000 for a similar car, I'm going to notice. But if I'm getting quotes of $1,200 or $1,500 would I know my thin data file is costing me money rather than some other mystery factor?

Rinse. Repeat for loans a half percent to a full percent higher than my credit score should otherwise get me.

Caring about privacy puts you on a list. It's like responding to spam asking to be taken off the mailing list; you're just verifying that you're someone they should be paying attention to.

I'd much rather be in a list for exercising my rights and upholding my convictions that cowering in fear of imagined damage for not toeing an arbitrary line.

Sounds like a pretty awful way to live. Honestly I'm shocked to hear such a conformist and timid opinion uttered in a forum called Hacker News.

Even if you play the 'actually this is a VC connected corporate forum' what sort of entrepreneur lives by this sort of preemptive self censoring?

The person you're responding to is being descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm not sure why you're engaging with it as an "opinion".

You think it is a certainty that if I care about privacy I will be put on a list (never mind what list or why does it matter), and you think it's a certainty you should appease the powers that be by pretending not to care?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com