61–70 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any downsides to deleting or opting out? Eg if you opt out of credit agencies then you have trouble getting credit cards and loans.
I don't think that it's meaningfully possible to opt out or delete, so this is a purely academic question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that it's meaningfully possible to opt out or delete, so this is a purely academic question.
You can factually opt out AND delete the data if you’re a California resident - as specified by the above link.
Also, it does nothing for people who aren't in California.
California's law is much better than nothing, but it's not as good as the GDPR and the GDPR isn't really adequate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how you equate agencies like the FBI and CIA with newspapers. Seems like a really weak argument from here. One is a commercial venture with zero license to kill or interfere with foreign political processes.
The FBI and CIA are newspaper readers in this analogy.
Not a great analogy really.
California residents, here's the data deletion form: https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/request#california
You can get a free copy of what LexisNexis has on you, just like you can with your credit report. The difference is that the LexisNexis report is book thick for most people. The amount of information far exceeds what the credit bureaus have. In my case, quite a bit of it was wrong but adjacent. It thought I owned a huge commercial building, which was actually owned by the developer of a condo I owned in another part…
Something I literally have never been able to do, despite tons of trying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the stolen cars are taken to a chop shop or ditched before the owner even realizes it has been stolen.
Don't the chop shop locations show up at the hub of stolen car paths when the ALPR data is used retrospectively for cars reported as stolen?
The most dystopian part of this is that they aren’t good at the service they provide, don’t have competition or incentive to be, and as a result, people will get caught up in their destructive wake. Fully expecting The Trial to manifest in real life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t like the government being able to do this, but common sense seems to dictate that in cases where the user has freely given out their information and where a private citizen can go buy that information, the government should be able to buy it.
> in cases where the user has freely given out their information How often have people freely given their information? I'd argue that if you have to give out information in order to live, that doesn't count as freely giving it. That's being compelled to give it. In US society, it's literally impossible to live without giving your information to a variety of entities.
I acknowledge there are cases where it’s effectively impossible in modern society, such as with giving out your info to get a cell phone, but believe by verbiage “freely giving out information” accounts for this.
It's funny, because growing up I thought LexisNexis were just one of those guys I'd use to find academic articles from the school library system, like JSTOR. Then I got employed by the collections industry straight out of college and found out what skiptracing is. There used to be quite a few skiptracing vendors: Accurint, Banko, FastData, to name a few. LexisNexis bought all of them. I imagine that the dossier they…