Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

computerworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#151

Post by wl »

michaelochurch wrote: post #78

What creeps me out is that there are now salary databases that people can use to see someone's prior salary history, job titles, and (in some cases) details of separation. It shouldn't be legal for those to exist, nor for companies to use them. I actually checked myself in one ("The Work Number") in 2012 and it had an accurate title and salary history, which I hadn't made public. Scary, creepy stuff going on. How the…

If you have information in The Work Number, it means your employer gave it to them. Employers do this because it allows them to outsource income verification.

I know of no way to opt out of it other than quitting. Also, while income information can only be accessed if you consent, collection agencies can get accounts that allow them to see the home address you have on file with them.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#152

Post by wpietri »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #84
skybrian wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody asked that the service to be limited to women. That's something you're adding to the conversation. So it seems to me that you're politicizing it even more.

From the top comment of this thread: > And I would happily give money to a nonprofit who provides this as a free service for women in tech That's how I understood it, and I think it's supported by the poster's other comments.

Skybrian is right; you're wrong.

I am speaking of two separate things: a commercial product and a nonprofit that gives away free subscriptions to the commercial product. Although now that you mention it, if some sort of existing nonprofit focusing on diversity in tech built a service, that would also be something I'm glad to support.

One easy way to tell that I didn't want guys excluded from the service: I said I wanted to subscribe, and I am a guy.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#153

Post by wpietri »

muyuu wrote: post #142
wpietri wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This response grates a little. It's so common that it's widely discussed and parodied. E.g.: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argu... http://www.robot-hugs.com/but-men/ And it's closely related to the "not all men" line, equally mocked: http://www.listen-tome.com/save-me/ http://imgur.com/gallery/z5AYz66 But assuming that you are sincere and just unaware of the context: The reason that I person…

Still, it would make zero sense to me that someone would provide a service against doxxing and limit said service to women. Why discriminating against men? Men can also be victimized by doxxing. How about providing it to people instead of just the female subset of people?

Sorry if I was unclear. I am talking about two separate things: a commercial service and a nonprofit who would provide subscriptions to the service. As I said, I want to subscribe.

However, nonprofits pretty regularly provide services to limited groups of people. Veteran's groups focus on veterans. Women's shelters focus on women. The Alliance of Transylvanian Saxons focuses on Transylvanian Saxons. So if some existing nonprofit were to build this as part of their work, I'd have no problem with them limiting it to whatever group they were focusing on.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#154

Post by wpietri »

random_pr wrote: post #38
wpietri wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This response grates a little. It's so common that it's widely discussed and parodied. E.g.: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argu... http://www.robot-hugs.com/but-men/ And it's closely related to the "not all men" line, equally mocked: http://www.listen-tome.com/save-me/ http://imgur.com/gallery/z5AYz66 But assuming that you are sincere and just unaware of the context: The reason that I person…

Your post is very politicized. There is no use arguing politics. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

The whole point of democracy is arguing politics. There is plenty of use in it. That's why we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, for example. Plus deliberative bodies as a key element of every level of government.

Also, that you construct it as politicized suggests you have a political opinion in opposition to women being treated as equals. If you oppose that, well, then you oppose that. But it would also explain why a) you insist on labeling views you don't like as "very politicized" and b) why you preemptively declare that there's no point in arguing. To me it reads as a slightly more grown up version of the hands-over-the-ears style of argumentation.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#155

Post by muyuu »

wpietri wrote: post #153
muyuu wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, it would make zero sense to me that someone would provide a service against doxxing and limit said service to women. Why discriminating against men? Men can also be victimized by doxxing. How about providing it to people instead of just the female subset of people?

Sorry if I was unclear. I am talking about two separate things: a commercial service and a nonprofit who would provide subscriptions to the service. As I said, I want to subscribe. However, nonprofits pretty regularly provide services to limited groups of people. Veteran's groups focus on veterans. Women's shelters focus on women. The Alliance of Transylvanian Saxons focuses on Transylvanian Saxons. So if some existi…

A commercial service is paradoxically (or not) exonerated of their own market-limiting decisions. It's when we're talking about a non-profit that moral issues arise for things like discrimination for gender (in this case would be discrimination towards males).

The problems doxxing creates don't distinguish between males and females. Veterans suffer a number of problems that these orgs care about, same for women's shelters (generally speaking) - they provide a service that is functionally different for their target group. Doxxed people are both genders and distinguishing between them is completely artificial and discriminatory in the pejorative sense of the word. The facilities you'd set up against doxxing would work just as well for males but for no reason whatsoever you'd leave them out.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#156

Post by michaelochurch »

wl wrote: post #151
michaelochurch wrote: post #78

What creeps me out is that there are now salary databases that people can use to see someone's prior salary history, job titles, and (in some cases) details of separation. It shouldn't be legal for those to exist, nor for companies to use them. I actually checked myself in one ("The Work Number") in 2012 and it had an accurate title and salary history, which I hadn't made public. Scary, creepy stuff going on. How the…

If you have information in The Work Number, it means your employer gave it to them. Employers do this because it allows them to outsource income verification. I know of no way to opt out of it other than quitting. Also, while income information can only be accessed if you consent, collection agencies can get accounts that allow them to see the home address you have on file with them.

So are you saying that companies can't get income information on, say, prospective job candidates?

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#157

Post by firepacket »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #103
giarc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you can enter email addresses as x+y@example.com where x=your regular email and y=some word/phrase to indicate who might have sold your email. For example, if you register bill+NG@example.com with national geographic, and you find yourself getting to: bill+NG@example.com from spam, you know who sold your info. My question is, do you think companies know this trick and just remove the portion following the "+"?

Most of the time when I try to use this it just doesn't accept the email address. I've wondered if they sincerely don't think that's a valid email address or if they're intentionally thwarting that strategy.

I doubt it's intentional. Most common validation regexs that your average web dev would use tend to reject the + character.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#158

Post by judk »

hackuser wrote: post #102
cowsandmilk wrote: post #54

There are plenty of sources of information where you cannot opt out. If you own property in Massachusetts, I can find it using http://www.masslandrecords.com , you can't opt out of that.

The electricity provider here requires the use of 'smart meters' (that is, if you want to use their electricity). Via smart meters, they can identify what electrical appliances are used in your house and when (and possibly even how you are using them, such as what TV show you are watching), giving them a good picture of everything that goes on in the privacy of your home.[1] There is no opt-out. They have this inform…

Install a capacitor to smooth out the signal.

Watch the Adult Swim SmartPipe infomercial for another take.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#159

Post by wl »

michaelochurch wrote: post #156
wl wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have information in The Work Number, it means your employer gave it to them. Employers do this because it allows them to outsource income verification. I know of no way to opt out of it other than quitting. Also, while income information can only be accessed if you consent, collection agencies can get accounts that allow them to see the home address you have on file with them.

So are you saying that companies can't get income information on, say, prospective job candidates?

According to Equifax, you need to give someone a code you generate at their website in order to release their income information. They're careful not to mention their sale of data other than income information to debt collectors, though.

Re: Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers

#160

Post by ghayes »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #127
ghayes wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also add Safe Shepherd [0]. We remove your information from the standard data brokers, and also give you guides on how to remove yourself from a large universe of sites yourself. Message me if you have any questions. Edit: The service costs $13.95/mo, but you can get started with a 10-day free trial where we'll kick off all of the removals. You can (fully) delete your account at any time if you'd like. [0] ht…

Question - I can see the value of a service that automates all these removal requests. That said, the monthly subscription model seems a bit excessive, as I assume data would creep back in gradually. I would think quarterly, or even annually resubmitting them all would be adequate. No?

Many of our customers choose to turn the service on once every several months (upgrade and then downgrade at the end of the month). We totally support whatever works for you.

That said, our service is based around continually scanning the web for exposures of your personal information. There's plenty of new information that crops up all the time, and we're here to help you when it does.

Post reply on HN