Anyone have experience with these sort of services? A search brings up a lot of scammy looking results. But if services exist to reduce my profile id be interested.
Quite a bit. Often if you request removal or opt-out, you'll reappear in a matter of a few months in their system, regardless of whether you use a professional service as a proxy or do it yourself. The data brokers usually go out of their way to be annoying about it and will claim they can't do anything about you showing up in their aggregated sources later on. They'll never tell you what these sources are. A lot of them will share data with each other, stuff that's not public. It's entirely hostile and should be illegal. I am trying to craft a lawsuit angle at the moment but they feel totally unassailable.
I'm extremely skeptical of any services that claim they can guarantee 100% removal after any length of time of longer than 6 months. From my technical viewpoint and experience, it is very much an unsolved problem.
don't mix your pet grievances together, having full public knowledge of every person in your country is democratizing, frankly, an aid to democracy, not a hindrance. Not saying I want to live in that world, but it's not an impure democracy.
Norway (and others?) already publishes everybody's income statements. Not healthy imo but I guess would aid more accurate snitching (and envious resentment).
Not to minimize the harm that can be done by such collections, but the law is justifiably looking for a scalpel treatment here to address the specific problem without putting the quest to understand reality on the wrong side of the line.
Sure, but the US has a precedent in HIPAA. Not saying it's copy-paste, but... maybe it should be.
I would prefer the law be more restrictive than less, because I don't believe this is true:
> law is justifiably looking for a scalpel treatment here to address the specific problem without putting the quest to understand reality on the wrong side of the line.
I believe the law may use that noble goal as cover for the actual goal: restrict the ability of capital holders to accumulate capital as little as possible. Data sharing isn't a public good in any way. It's mostly not even useful for the targeting purposes it claims. It's extremely reckless rent-seeking that knowingly allows innocent people to have their lives wrecked by identity theft.
I think we are going to discover, once people do the research, that HIPAA has done net harm by delaying flow of information for critical-care patients resulting in lack of patient compliance, confusion, and treatment error.
Yes, there is harm potential in insurance companies denying coverage or claims because they are privy to too much information about clients (a scenario that, I'd note, we could address directly by law via a national healthcare system or banning denial of coverage for various reasons) or by employers or hostile actors (including family) discovering medical facts about a patient. I have to weigh that harm potential against my day-to-day of having to fight uphill to get quality care because every specialist, every facility, and every department needs a properly-updated HIPAA directive for a patient (and the divisions between these categories aren't clear to the average non-medical observer).
You won't find any disagreement from me that HIPAA is very complicated. However there's a certain level of whining and foot dragging that happens in the industry that we should take with a massive grain of salt. There's so many HIPAA compliant and still convenient ways these days to have patient communications, but the industry doesn't want to invest and doesn't care about patience experience enough, and then go "sorry, HIPAA :-(((" every time.
With GDPR, after Schrems II happened and it became clearer that the EU-US Privacy Shield was no longer a valid workaround, I personally observed companies (including the one I was in) suddenly moving mountains to complete migration projects and privacy upgrades in just a few months that the industry previously deemed was technically unfeasible or impossible, cost prohibitive, business destroying, etc. And they still remained massively profitable and growing. If they had just done the right thing early on it wouldn't have been on such a tight deadline either.
That was the final straw for me in terms of being very firmly convinced that we should be telling companies to shut up and comply a lot more because they will never do the right thing on their own even if it wasn't /that/ hard. Another approach here is to start holding them liable for the personal costs of data breaches etc and let the incentives take care of themselves. In fact, why not a bit of both?
There are definitely exceptions, but it puts strict scrutiny on any novel prior constraint of speech.
When you tell a data broker to delete all of the data about you, how can you be sure they get ALL of the data about you, including the ones where your name is misspelled or the DoB is wrong or it lists and old address or something? Even worse if someone comes around later and discovers the orphan data when adding new data about you and fixes the glitch, effectively undoing the data delete.
It's a catch-22 that if you want them to not collect data about you they need a full profile on you in order to be able to reject new data. A profile that they will need to keep up-to-date, which is what they were doing already.
You don’t have to solve it perfectly to be an improvement.
Also this is BS. Not every bit of data is perfectly formatted and structured but both of your examples are structured data. You can 100% reliably and deterministically hash this data.
There’s so much in your argument that can be replied with “imperfect is better than status quo”. If you give someone the wrong DOB, it’s “not you” anyways, at least let me scrub my real data even if the entry is imperfect for some people or some records.
They don't want to solve your problem. You aren't their customer. They want to comply with the letter of the request in as much as it covers their own butt in terms of regulatory requirements and/or political optics.
Hashing a birthday and SSN is deterministic. We could deterministically keep that data deleted. This would be better than we have today, and could be done reliably and affordably.
The companies can easily be required (by law) to implement the “good” solution. Everyone complaining it’s not “perfect” is stopping “good”.
If you can’t get your SSN right, you can’t expect a company to delete it.
edit for clarity: by criminal records, I mean for the official management of them, not for scraping their content.
There could also be a shared, trusted opt-out service that accepted information and returned a boolean saying “opt-out” or “opt-in”.
Ideally, it’d return “opt-out” in the no-information case.
If these devs that scrape/dump/collate all this info are anything like the ones I've seen, and they're functioning in countries like the US and UK whereby you don't have individual identifiers that are pretty unique, then I'd say the chance of them being able to get such a "unique" key on you to remove you perpetually, is next to impossible. And if it's even close to being "hard", they'll not even bother. Doubley-so if this service/people/data is anything like the credit-score companies, which are notoriously bad at data de duplication and sanitation.
Likewise, if you want them to do some sort of removal using things other than a unique identifier, then you have to have some sort of function that determines closeness between the two records. From what I've heard, places like Interpol, countries' border-control and police agencies usually use name, surname and dob as a combination to match. Amazingly unique and unchanging combination, that one! /s
But how would they keep making money that way?
You store a hashed version of my SSN, or my phone number, to represent my opt-out? Someone can just hash every number from 000-00-0000 to 999-99-9999 and figure out mine from that.
You hash the entire contents of the profile - name+address+phone+e-mail+DOB+SSN - and the moment a data source provides them with a profile only containing name+address+email - the missing fields mean the hashes won't match.
A trusted third party will work a lot better IMHO.
And of course none of the data brokers have much reason to make opt-outs work well, in the absence of legislation and strict enforcement - it's in their commercial interests to say they "can't stop your data reappearing"
That's what salts are for, right? It wouldn't be too hard to issue a very large, known, public salt alongside each SSN.
> And of course none of the data brokers have much reason to make opt-outs work well, in the absence of legislation and strict enforcement - it's in their commercial interests to say they "can't stop your data reappearing"
This is the actual reason, IMHO.
Since the salts are random, unique to each SSN and long: a) you'll find no existing rainbow table that contains the correct plaintext for your SSN hash and b) each SSN now requires its own bruteforcing that is unhelpful for any of the other SSNs
Combine that with a very expensive hashing method like PBKDF2 (I'm sure there's something better by now) and you've made it pretty dang hard for non state actors to bruteforce a significant chunk of SSNs. There's also peppers that involve storing some more global secrets on HSMs.
I'm sure the crypto nerds have like a dozen better methods than what I can come up with but the point is this is not a feasibility issue.
In a password database, salt is not secret because the password combined with it is secret and can be anything. Even if you know the salt for a particular user, in order to crack that user, you need to start hashing all possible passwords combined with that salt. If a user picks a dumb password like password123, then they are not safe if the salt leaks. Other users with password=password123 will not be immediately apparent because other users have different salts. You would have to try password123 combined with each user’s salt to identify all the users with password123.
You said “It wouldn't be too hard to issue a very large, known, public salt alongside each SSN.” That means there should be some theoretical service where you pass it an ssn and get back the salt, right? So what have you gained? Any attacker with an ssn can get the salt, and nothing was gained. Or if attackers don’t have ssns they can just ask for all the salts, the mapping from ssn to salt is public so they know 000-00-000 has salt1, 000-00-001 has salt2, etc, so you haven’t increased the amount of hashes attackers have to do to do whatever it is they want to do.
You’re right about commercial interests being at play. That’s why we don’t have laws like GDPR in the USA. Crypto nerds have thought about this long and hard and if it was that easy we wouldn’t need stupidly complex laws like GDPR. They would “just add salt.” Or other services would “just add salt” instead of relying on more complex and expensive forms of identity verification and protection.
You don’t need to be a crypto nerd to try to describe a flow where having a public known salt per ssn helps with privacy. You do not need to be a crypto nerd to design secure one way hash functions that would plug into that flow.
Poster above me just said “add salt” and waved their hands without describing anything concrete, like just saying some magic words can solve hard problems.
Even if such a service doesn’t exist, and you just have a list of all the salts without knowing which ssn they map to, you’re just hand waving how hard it will be to hash the entire salt*ssn set.
Hashing a salt+ssn can’t take too too long because data brokers need to be doing it frequently in order to verify identities.
In this report, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_consumer-..., it says monthly volume of credit card marketing mail is in the hundreds of millions per month. Can we assume that each piece of mail is roughly associated with one instance of hashing a salt+ssn? Given that number, how expensive (in terms of time, compute cycles, whatever) can it possibly be to hash a salt+ssn? If we make it too expensive, expensive enough to support your “age of the universe” claims, credit markets would grind to a halt.
2. Sounds like "data brokers" that sell private information just shouldn't exist...
They would leak that in the next data breach.
I should be hearing back from them in the next 32 days, as this was 13 days ago.
Of note, opting out of a service by yourself by hand was only 70% effective ($0). Using EasyOptOuts was around 65% effective ($20) and using Confidently was only 6% effective ($120).
[1] https://innovation.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/20...
Simple Opt Out (manual list):
Edit: nvm, ``` findstr /i /r ".000000000." ssn.txt ``` did the trick in powershell, with the zeros replaced with the ssn. Also there is a star after each period that HN has changed to italicize the text instead of showing it.
filed for injunctive relief from emotional duress due to actions of defendant.
and cant speak any further as instructed by legal cousel
"I called him on the phone and he told me!"
Which is how it plays out when someone dies, generally, and the family is there dealing with the aftermath. FYI.
>probably a paperwork mixed up around pensions when his ex-spouse died
Anecdotally, searching my name on Google pretty much no longer returns those scummy "People Finder" pages that just scrap any public records they can find.
That said, I hope incogni is happy enough with my money that they themselves don't do anything scummy.
Also, freeze your credit at the big three. do it now.
And I say this, because I was on a TV show years ago, so my real name is all over the internet from an entertainment point of view. But, if you search my real name, there are little to none pointing back to "public record" websites and the such.
Then, as fate would have it, a HNer(tjames7000) mentioned he made EasyOptOuts for this reason, so I signed up. Cheap, seems effective, absolutely no complaints.
Has the opt-out services leaked as well? Or is noone using them? How would we know?