[HN Gopher] Hank Asher turned Americans' private information int...
___________________________________________________________________
Hank Asher turned Americans' private information into a business
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 183 points
Date : 2023-09-22 14:46 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| paulpauper wrote:
| $100s of millions of dollar of pre-ipo wealth. one step below
| paper wealth. It would seem like in the late 90s wealth was
| fleeting like that, not like today where ppl in tech seem to get
| rich and stay rich (like Stipe, Coinbbase, Dorpbox, and others).
| Riches to rags stories seemed more common 2-3 decades ago
| compared to today.
| ako wrote:
| Thought this would be about mark zuckerberg....
| dventimi wrote:
| [dead]
| pizzafeelsright wrote:
| I worked with a gentleman who worked with Asher. I learned a lot
| about databases and people's data through those conversations.
|
| I think the solution to data privacy is to require companies to
| provide the receipts of where they obtained the data. Know my
| age? I didn't tell you. You bought it? From whom? Follow up with
| them. No receipt? Fine paid directly to the individual. Make PII
| data property.
| Obscurity4340 wrote:
| Yas! Paper trails and more paper trails. Follow the money and
| handoffs
| avgcorrection wrote:
| The solution to data tracking is more data tracking?
|
| This would work if everything would be done in bulk and by
| officials. It wouldn't work if it was just something citizens
| would have a _right_ to know but would have to do all the
| legwork in order to uncover (sending out dozens of requests)
| and then would have to sue entities in court.
|
| It seems simpler to regulate PII based on consent and strict
| need-to-know principles.
| dataflow wrote:
| > No receipt? Fine paid directly to the individual. Make PII
| data property.
|
| Er, so anyone can keep your 'property' (data) without your
| consent by just paying you the statutory fee?
| verve_rat wrote:
| Why wouldn't the fine also come with instructions to "stop
| that"?
|
| If you shoplift and get caught, you don't get to keep the
| stuff.
| dataflow wrote:
| Well it wasn't in the comment, they just mentioned a fine,
| not any other penalty.
|
| Moreover, have you seen how some people (generally
| wealthier, but not always) treat, say, paid parking? They
| just don't pay at all, because it's not worth the hassle
| for them. Sometimes even with the occasional enforcement,
| they come out ahead compared to just paying the original
| fee. But even if it isn't worth it financially, it's often
| worth their time, so they do it without really caring one
| way or the other.
|
| Anyway... the penalty for shoplifting (assuming they bother
| to go after you) isn't generally a "pay this fine and
| return what you stole". It's being subject to everything
| that comes with crimes... dealing with law enforcement,
| tarnishing your personal record, potentially getting jail
| time depending on the severity, etc. Any civil case that
| you might get filed against you for damages, attorneys'
| fees, etc. is just icing on the cake, and hardly the meat
| of the punishment.
| Nevermark wrote:
| Ok, but let's strong man this instead of finding reasons
| not to consider it.
|
| If they get caught it's $100 and they need to delete it.
| Caught with the same data its $1000.
|
| Furthermore, if they are caught storing data in a
| pattern, say 100 people catch them within a year of the
| first, the fine retroactively becomes $1000 per incident
| over the time of the pattern.
|
| With a Judge having discretion to raise fines,
| retroactively and inclusive of new violations, for
| companies that simply refuse to comply.
|
| I feel like this could work.
|
| In fact, I would think most companies would start
| designing their systems to ensure they didn't violate by
| accident. Which is what they are supposed to be doing,
| but not.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| The value of modern data analytics comes from the massive
| quantities they have available. Each individual piece of data
| is hardly worth anything.
|
| Make it easy to file a claim and set the fine at $100 per
| occurance and things would change rather quickly.
| dataflow wrote:
| I think you missed the point? You're putting a price on
| people's privacy. Not everyone who feels their privacy is
| being violated really wants payment in exchange, they just
| don't want their privacy to be violated.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| Ah, I was looking at it from a system level. Make it a
| highly lopsided financial cost for a company to use data
| that hasn't been consented to, and the huge number of
| people keeping tabs on them would make it financially
| ruinous for a company to try and skirt the rules.
|
| End outcome is the same - peoples privacy already has a
| price. That price is just currently only represented by
| FAANG profits.
| dataflow wrote:
| [flagged]
| ianai wrote:
| In the US the civil courts dole out rulings requiring the
| injured party be paid by the offender when enough
| evidence has been presented. It's not perfect-money can't
| right all wrongs and the valuations can be problematic-
| but it can act as a counterbalance. Making it a law would
| mean a company would risk losing their ability to
| continue as a business following a successful conviction.
| In the US this has been turned into rarely indicting
| companies as the government doesn't want to destroy whole
| companies that way and give other companies undue market
| power, or something.
|
| Feels like an area that could be handled better.
| tiffanyg wrote:
| There is a certain mindset that unfortunately has been
| ever more widely 'bought into' and is especially highly
| represented at the top levels of corporations in recent
| years* (particularly in the US). The mindset is
| fundamentally "invisible hand", "Adam Smith", "Ayn Rand",
| etc. People who mostly or nearly only think in terms of
| costs, profits, etc.**
|
| The easiest way to deal with people like this is by
| putting it in 'the language' they speak. While I'd love,
| personally, to see some direct regulation, legislation,
| etc. that doesn't involve turning this into yet another
| line 'in the books' / in the annual reports etc. of
| companies ... and feeds, arguably, even more into that
| sort of thinking ... for multiple reasons there are
| extensive practical issues with doing that in the US
| currently. It'd certainly be helpful in the longer term
| if we could get some people away from viewing everything
| through the lens of numbers - especially conflating OTHER
| PEOPLE with "format strings" in Excel (effectively). But,
| I believe in being practical along with strategic. If
| such metrics are needed, private-party lawsuits are
| needed ... if government (outside of perhaps putting some
| basic accounting in place &/ the justice system and
| current tort laws) is not an option for sorting out
| disputes and correcting bad behavior, particularly some
| forms of traditional government regulation, and the
| bottom-line is king ... then let's use what is available
| or might be put in place, ultimately speaking the
| 'language' necessary to push things in a more reasonable
| direction.
|
| * Not uniformly distributed, for sure, but increasingly
| visible on average - in part, thanks MBA programs, but
| also, somewhat relatedly, decades of work and marketing
| from people who really want to turn the clock back ...
| wannabe robber-barons (https://youtu.be/DqgvHUg_vxY) and
| even those with plantation 'wetdreams'
|
| ** Incidentally, this is related to the kind of "mob
| rule" that outright dangerous politicians like Trump
| represent. Importantly, dangerous to EVERYONE, even those
| in the cult, though they almost certainly don't know the
| true extent of the danger, even remotely. In essence,
| without any principles / rule of law established in
| notions like actual justice, truth, fairness, equitable
| treatment, etc., any forces driving large systems
| involving people will tend to devolve into forms of mob
| rule. Whether it's markets for goods and services, the
| "marketplace of ideas", etc.
|
| What is more and more absent in America, in particular,
| in public discourse especially, but also in certain
| business sectors of, in some cases, outsized importance
| in this entire 'picture', is the kind of principled
| viewpoints, ideas, thinking, etc. that have repeatedly
| re-formed this country at those critical moments when it
| might have broken / not become the exemplar that it often
| has been. Whether that happens this time as well remains
| to be seen, I think.
|
| That's a massive topic ... all of this is ... and I am
| really no expert in much of this, so caveat there, but, I
| have enough of a sense and of the details of history and
| the differences in outcomes at different times and in
| different places to offer the commentary I am right now.
| More importantly, regardless of some of the background /
| mechanisms, the actual behaviors are clear enough in
| recent times / events / data. I.e., what I've written
| outside of these footnotes.
| dataflow wrote:
| No comment on your larger point, but I fail to see any
| evidence that the 'language' is the problem, or that
| speaking in "fines" is a solution. In fact, I see quite
| the opposite - we've seen repeatedly that corporations
| treat fines as cost of business. Moreover it's not like
| data collection was ever outlawed, so I don't see the
| motivation to give up immediately and jump to a fining
| model. If anything, sanctioning things via fees could
| very well cement the practice in even more, and make it
| harder to outlaw entirely.
| VinLucero wrote:
| I agree this solution solves privacy in an economically
| sensible way.
| tacticalmook wrote:
| Could give us the run-around with circular receipts, or
| millions of back-and-forth receipts.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| If we can't follow the trail, you get a fine. It's not our
| problem, it's your problem.
| YeBanKo wrote:
| Why not require companies to get consent from the person to
| store the data, regardless where they get it from?
| myth2018 wrote:
| Not sure it'd be enough. In one Brazilian s State, it became
| mandatory for drugstores to get such consent. For some time,
| they presented a piece of paper and told people they needed
| that paper signed so that a juicy discount could be given.
| People didn't think twice.
|
| After some time the drugstores realized that the government
| had no resources nor interest to enforce such law and now
| they simply don't comply any longer.
|
| I'm afraid this is the sort of decision which average people
| is not really well-equipped to make by themselves. Companies
| should be forbidden to collect and sell certain sorts of
| data, period.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| that's what should be illegal: to give discounts based on
| whether you disclose your PII or not. that's because they
| were already investigated once on allegations that they
| would sell this data to insurance, but that's hard to
| prove. if the discount was straight up illegal, prosecutors
| would have a much easier case
|
| in the Brazilians drugstores case, it's absurd, it's like,
| a $400 drug sold for $300 (mumbers in local currency) if
| you agree to disclose the equivalent of your SSN. how can
| your data be worth so much?
|
| truth is that they don't expect so sell a single unit for
| $400 - the price difference in this case is enough for, in
| practice, providing your PII is mandatory
| myth2018 wrote:
| > that's what should be illegal: to give discounts based
| on whether you disclose your PII or not
|
| That would definitely help, but I think it wouldn't be
| enough. Drugstores would promptly come up with some app-
| related trick, like "just scan this QR-code to redeem
| your discount", and personal info would be acquired
| indirectly.
|
| Legislators started to elaborate a bill recently,
| addressing the case of drugstores in particular, but I
| suspect they will end up delivering something full of
| breaches, just like they did in the State of Sao Paulo.
|
| Moreover, drugstores are on the spot currently, but there
| are plenty of companies doing exactly the same nowadays.
|
| > in the Brazilians drugstores case, it's absurd, it's
| like, a $400 drug sold for $300
|
| Indeed. And I've seen even more scandalous differences
| already. Psychiatric drugs are the champions, in my
| experience.
| PeterisP wrote:
| The EU/GDPR solution to that is definition of "freely
| given consent" where such discount treatment means that
| the "consent" doesn't count as a valid reason to permit
| processing data, as it was not freely given; and also by
| the requirement to be able to withdraw consent as easy it
| was to give it, at any time, and without adverse
| consequence, for example, one minute after receiving that
| discount.
| myth2018 wrote:
| Brazilian LGPD also mandates companies to provide
| channels for users to request their data to be deleted.
| Theoretically, one can ask their data to be deleted right
| after they received a discount. But I dont't know. I
| guess they would do everything they are entitled to in
| the interim, and by the time your data removal request is
| fulfilled, the damage is already done.
| myth2018 wrote:
| > that's what should be illegal: to give discounts based
| on whether you disclose your PII or not
|
| That would definitely help, but I think it wouldn't be
| enough. Drugstores would promptly come up with some app-
| related trick, like "just scan this QR-code to redeem
| your discount", and personal-info would be acquired
| indirectly.
|
| They started to elaborate a bill recently, addressing the
| case of drugstores in particular, but I suspect they will
| eventually deliver something full of breaches, just like
| they did in the State of Sao Paulo.
|
| Moreover, drugstores are on the spot currently, but there
| are plenty of companies doing exact the same nowadays.
|
| >
| ianai wrote:
| Exactly. Acknowledge that PII and other data resulting from a
| persons engagement with a platform is the persons property-
| not the property of the platform. Don't want to pay? Don't
| store it, don't sell it.
| johndhi wrote:
| Kind of a nightmare for cloud computing. What if for example
| I'm a small business who stores my customer's email in
| Salesforce. And uses another cloud provider to port data in
| and out of Salesforce. And then uses splunk for error
| monitoring... etc. All of them need explicit consent?
| LapsangGuzzler wrote:
| Adding friction makes sense in this context. The ease with
| which we as technologists move customer data between
| systems directly contributes to the privacy problem. It's
| not the only avenue to improve end-user privacy, but as
| long it remains easy for companies to move sensitive
| customer data between systems, this will continue to be
| abused.
| jckahn wrote:
| Yes please! That sounds great.
| duncan-donuts wrote:
| This is the difference between a data processor and a data
| controller in the GDPR.
| [deleted]
| PeterisP wrote:
| The EU solution for that is specific 'data processor'
| agreements where (a) they process the data on your behalf;
| (b) they don't gain any permission whatsoever to use that
| data for their own purposes, only what you ask them to do;
| (c) they only have the right to do with that data the same
| things you are permitted to do; (d) you have to inform
| users (but not necessarily get consent) of all the
| processors which are handling their data; (e) you're fully
| responsible for what the processor does with that data.
| Reasonable cloud providers like Saleforce, Splunk (and
| pretty much all others which do business in EU) all have
| adapted to GDPR and will give contractual guarantees that
| they'll do everything properly but it's up to you to pick
| providers which will actually uphold that contract.
| YeBanKo wrote:
| No, in short, all of them who want to act on data outside
| of your instructions, need an explicit consent.
|
| There is a difference between data controller and data
| processor. AWS FAQ on GDPR [1] has actually a good
| paragraph on it, see "Is AWS a data processor or a data
| controller under the GDPR?".
|
| In your example all cloud providers and SaaS businesses
| like Splunk store data _on your behalf_ and _you own and
| control_ it. For them it 's just a blob of data and they
| are supposed to be agnostic of its business meaning. With
| more targeted SaaS business like Salesforce, it might be
| more nuanced, depends if they want to do any kind data
| mining / processing themselves, but if they want to, then
| yeah, they need an explicit consent. A law like this forces
| SaaS companies to remove any ambiguity from their service
| agreements to make sure they are strictly designated as
| data processors when it comes to user data their customers
| supply them. This AWS GDPR addendum [2] exists for this
| reason. Otherwise, as a small business you rarely can
| negotiate a tailored agreement with a large SaaS company to
| make sure that the data you pump into it aren't going
| places.
|
| [1] https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/gdpr-center/
|
| [2] https://d1.awsstatic.com/legal/aws-
| gdpr/AWS_GDPR_DPA.pdf
| specialist wrote:
| > _Fine paid directly to the individual. Make PII data
| property._
|
| Correct. Specifically, establish personal sovereignty over
| one's data.
|
| If someone's using my data, I get my cut. Pay me.
|
| --
|
| I'll have to ponder the notion of receipts (provenance).
|
| I can imagine how the provenance of my data probably matters.
| Prescriptions, test results, reading list, etc.
|
| But PII is so ubiquitous now, it's part of the public record.
| Which, counter intuitively, is a good thing.
|
| Establishing a stable universal identifier unlocks the ability
| to encrypt our personal data _at rest_.
|
| In our current world of no universal identifiers, linking
| personal data data across systems requires it be stored as
| plaintext.
|
| The book Translucent Databases (2nd ed) explains the
| techniques.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| > They influence [...] how long I wait on hold when I call a
| customer-service line.
|
| say what?!
| flangola7 wrote:
| Call directing has been a practice for decades. Customers that
| bring in less revenue or are more likely to be a problem that
| consumes agent time and refund budgets get de-prioritized.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I had no idea, I've just been living my life thinking the
| world is just and we all wait in the same line.
|
| Thinking back on it, when I heard "calls are answered in the
| order they are received" I never asked myself "what other
| order would they be answered in" xD :'<
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > I had no idea, I've just been living my life thinking the
| world is just and we all wait in the same line.
|
| The lines were not obvious, or there were simply fewer
| segmentations, when I was a kid.
|
| Now, you see it at the airport with 3 different levels
| (regular TSA/precheck/clear), based on how much you pay.
|
| You see it at theme parks like Disney world / six flags,
| and even there, there are multiple levels of priority you
| can buy.
|
| And I went to my county fair for the first time this year,
| and I was somehow surprised that you could pay more for
| skipping ahead on simple carnival rides, even for toddlers.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The airport isn't a great example here. There are 3 lines
| because there are 2 different parties involved: the TSA,
| which has authority over the security checkpoint, and the
| airport/airlines, which have authority over the lines
| leading up to the checkpoint.
|
| The regular line is self explanatory. Precheck is solely
| run by the TSA, and they politely ask the airports to set
| up dedicated lines for precheck. Sometimes they do,
| sometimes they don't. Until passengers are in the
| checkpoint though (i.e. beyond the id check), the TSA has
| fairly limited authority. The airport is ultimately
| responsible for getting passengers to the security
| checkpoint, subject to some minor conditions by the TSA.
| Clear pays the airport/airlines a kickback from the
| subscriptions to let their agents manage the queues,
| which includes putting their subscribers in front of the
| other lines. One thing they can't do is give you special
| perks inside the checkpoint like precheck does.
|
| So, 3 lines because 2 different parties get revenue from
| one each.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| By "manage the lines" do you mean ID verification,
| boarding pass check, etc?
|
| I assume all the biometrics for Clear aren't just to
| prove your the person who paid for Clear?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| No, collecting biometrics at registration is required by
| the legal framework they operate in (a.k.a as a
| "Registered Traveler" program [0]). However, they could
| use other biometrics like fingerprints if they chose.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_Traveler
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I do not see how any of that is relevant.
|
| The point is, you pay more, you save life time. The
| government could have chosen to make it free so everyone
| can access these time saving measures, but our leaders
| did not, deeming it acceptable for further tranches of
| society to be publicly displayed.
| crazydoggers wrote:
| If you make it free, then everyone will choose the
| fastest one.. which means it will no longer be faster. So
| in order for time saving measures to work, you have to
| require selectivity.
|
| Paying is an easy way to select for those who value it
| the most, which are the frequent fliers. If you're a
| business traveler or otherwise someone who travels a lot,
| the price is small compared to the flights and the time
| saved is very large. That will be the inverse for those
| who need it least, the infrequent travelers.
|
| Yes some people who travel infrequently will choose to
| pay for the faster line, but then they are also
| subsidizing the extra cost of staff to run the other
| systems.
|
| The idea that this is meant to put tranches of society on
| display is ludicrous.
|
| Knowing a number of people who have to travel a lot for
| work, I might even say that most of the poor shlubs in
| the precheck lines who have to travel monthly or more
| frequently are the real losers in the grand scheme.
| Traveling in flying sardine cans to make a living is no
| fun.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >If you make it free, then everyone will choose the
| fastest one.. which means it will no longer be faster. So
| in order for time saving measures to work, you have to
| require selectivity.
|
| Or you can increase staffing.
|
| > The idea that this is meant to put tranches of society
| on display is ludicrous.
|
| It may or may not be meant to put it on display, but it
| shows it for what it is. People who can afford to pay to
| save time get prioritized through public infrastructure,
| and people that do not pay have to wait.
| tough wrote:
| The hyperfinancialization and commoditization of
| everything is what gets you
| hn_version_0023 wrote:
| No. The _despair_ is what gets you. It only gets you once
| you realize there are like a dozen people in the world
| who are legitimately *free*.
|
| The rest of us toil to make them happy. This unjust
| system should be razed to the ground.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| "costs a lot to live this free" - the bad guy in wayne's
| world
| tough wrote:
| Being _free_ sits more on the mind than the physical
| world.
|
| It is a state of mind, a man can be free on a jail.
|
| I'd recommend a read to Marcus Aurelius Meditations if
| you fancy that kinda thing.
|
| Maybe the 8 billionaires you've in mind are less free in
| their day to day to do whatever the fuck they want than
| the billions of poor people that barely gets by and
| survives.
|
| how many rich man have you met which aren't happy?
| yakubin wrote:
| I can see why an emperor could want to try to convince
| people that their lives are great, regardless of their
| material conditions. No need to rebel. Nothing to see
| here.
| voldacar wrote:
| Meditations was Marcus Aurelius' private journal. The
| only person he was convincing was himself. And as he
| governed during a period of relative stability and
| prosperity, your cynical (and ignorant) remark about
| "material conditions" makes no sense.
| gochi wrote:
| Meditations isn't good, and the advice that people should
| read it before reading Discourses (Epictetus) is often
| what creates a misleading view on stoicism as they never
| get to Discourses because of the larger time commitment.
| However it's this time commitment and patience that is at
| the core of stoicism.
|
| If you read Discourses, you would recognize your error in
| believing that a man can be free in jail, for he does not
| have the ability to choose where or how to exist, those
| are both limited directly by the existence of the jail.
| He can tolerate it, but not be free, as a stoic would
| tolerate a broken arm rather than claiming the broken arm
| makes them stronger.
| tough wrote:
| I see, I'm glad to stand corrected.
|
| Will read Discourses.
| [deleted]
| flangola7 wrote:
| Have never heard it in this mass data angle though.
| is_true wrote:
| I usually select the unsubscribe option to get to someone
| faster. Sometimes it works
| achrono wrote:
| I usually ask for sales. Always the fastest way to get hold
| of _someone_.
|
| Beyond that, sometimes it's begging that does it, sometimes
| it's threatening. I've discovered that some companies appear
| to have a rule where if a customer even utters something
| along the lines of "I will sue you" they're just obligated to
| escalate it without trying to waste your time -- bingo!
| staticautomatic wrote:
| The legal stuff works. I remember bickering with a Comcast
| agent once, and after saying "you see, this contract is a
| legally binding agreement between us..." I got escalated
| right away.
| shortcake27 wrote:
| Good for him. Now it's time to make it illegal to gather and/or
| sell personal information without explicit consent.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| The privacy Antichrist, I guess I should have known one must
| exist somewhere.
| Loggias wrote:
| [dead]
| cobertos wrote:
| I always wonder how this sort of data ends up escaping into the
| wild en-masse. Everytime I've come up against wanting public
| records they're not public by way of API public. They're always
| public with no easy way to get at them yourself en-masse, and no
| one is willing to write any code to get at them en-masse. Seems
| like the big players have cornered it
|
| Court records for instance
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| >Court records for instance
|
| I use neither email (for years now, a blessing!) nor have my
| own phone number (VOIP outbound, only). Anything requiring
| either gets a burner.email or my numeric pager.
|
| A recent civil court action requested both of these obsolete
| (to me) technologies, and the judge's clerk required that I
| sign an attestation upon leaving them unanswerable.
|
| Court records are public in my jurisdiction, and I choose to be
| "unreachable."
|
| ----
|
| Regarding the linked-to article, a harrowing read (certainly)!
| US citizens are allowed, by law, to request a FREE COPY of
| everything LexusNexis has on them in their private consumer
| file.
| codazoda wrote:
| I'd love to read more about your contact system if you've
| written about it or care to. I'm mostly unavailable on the
| phone except to people who are in my contact list (do not
| disturb mode) but I wouldn't mind considering how to take it
| a step farther.
| cj wrote:
| Re: lexusnexus, i wish they provided their data in a more
| legible format. Last time i requested my data it was provided
| in such a way where the data needed to be cross referenced
| with a legend which itself needed to be cross referenced with
| yet another table which made the whole data dump unreadable.
| staticautomatic wrote:
| As someone who used to broker Lexis data, lemme tell you,
| you don't want what comes out of their API either.
| cratermoon wrote:
| "But the plans were on display..."
|
| "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find
| them."
|
| "That's the display department."
|
| "With a flashlight."
|
| "Ah, well, the lights had probably gone."
|
| "So had the stairs."
|
| "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
|
| "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom
| of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a
| sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard."
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| How to be happier: Add these to your /etc/hosts to prevent
| gratitious anxiety 127.0.0.1 nytimes.com
| 127.0.0.1 wsj.com 127.0.0.1 washingtonpost.com
| 127.0.0.1 cnn.com 127.0.0.1 foxnews.com
| koheripbal wrote:
| wsj.com is far far more balanced and thoughtful than these
| other ones.
| hollerith wrote:
| On MacOS, you need 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1 to block a site
| in my experience.
| plasticsoprano wrote:
| In my experience that has never been the case and 127.0.0.1
| works just fine.
| hollerith wrote:
| My experience of (127.0.0.1's failing to work) was about 7
| to 10 years ago, and since 0.0.0.0 always continued to
| work, I lost interest in whether 127.0.0.1 ever started
| working again.
|
| Based on your report, I plan to stop informing people about
| the issue.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=loopback+ip+address
| ds wrote:
| A huge part of what we are building at https://redact.dev is a
| unified software suite for managing all data about you and that
| you created.. To date, that has mostly been data you create
| yourself ( tweets, fb posts, discord DM's, emails, etc.. ) but
| the bigger challenge is creating a simple interface that allows
| people to manage all this data about you thats floating out there
| that you DIDNT create.
|
| Its not just data broker removals- Its alexa recordings, youtube
| search history, your mailing preferences, and like 9999 other
| things. Data brokers are just one part of it.
|
| I enjoy the work we do but it also sucks having to do it. Each
| endpoint is its own challenge and doing something as simple as
| automating removal from one database can take days of a
| developers time. It will be a beautiful day when this stuff gets
| outlawed eventually.
| jonas21 wrote:
| The New York Times buys information from similar databases and
| uses it to determine the articles that are recommended to you on
| their site (among other things) [1]. Ironically, that may be the
| reason the submitter saw this article in the first place.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/privacy
| envsubst wrote:
| The credit card industry existed for decades before this.
| EMCymatics wrote:
| This is a far from new concept.
|
| "figured out" is misleading. He just built upon existing
| infrastructure.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I think making a product of the data itself is an innovation
|
| But to follow your lead, credit ratings go back to the 1880s,
| my favorite episode of "Backstory with the American History
| Guys" covers the topic:
|
| https://backstoryradio.org/shows/keeping-tabs-2016/
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Acxiom started in the 1960's. They've been selling consumer
| data ever since.
| thedudeabides5 wrote:
| [flagged]
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| There shouldn't is the paywall, I sent it as a gift, try again
| with this link:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/magazine/hank-asher-data....
| kibwen wrote:
| I assume HN automatically strips the query string from
| submitted URLs, to deter things like tracking IDs and
| referral links.
| lightedman wrote:
| Well, that gets annoying when the referral has the
| identifier that allows people to read the article for free.
|
| Perhaps the HN mods should act as actual editors instead of
| mods. Slashdot does it - it works when the editors actually
| pay attention. Let's see how closely HN's mods pay
| attention.
| tough wrote:
| I assume this is automated away and might not be
| recoverable by dang et al, I've thought many times about
| making an archive bot for hn submissions, might go as
| well as build it, it's weird that in this site full of
| hacker no one has thought of it before, makes me think
| it's prohibited or something but I don't really think so,
| as archive links are generally permitted, maybe have a
| bot spam every comment section isn't ideal tho
| fuball63 wrote:
| It works for me, thanks!
| gnabgib wrote:
| HN uses the canonical link (HTML -> HEAD -> Link=canonical)
| to reconcile the "true" URL to help with dupe detection. You
| can't submit a gift link since the canonical excludes that
| code. (You can always comment the link though, thank you!)
| kitten_mittens_ wrote:
| Nytimes gift links only work for the first person that uses
| it, I believe.
| darkhorn wrote:
| Click the reading mode in Firefox mobile.
| [deleted]
| ozan42 wrote:
| https://archive.ph/uFN1R (without a paywall)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-24 23:00 UTC)